Is religious faith normal, natural, or desirable? Does it serve an important function in the life of man, or is it, rather, an aggregation of pernicious superstitions, designed to soothe timid souls and blind man to truth by retarding his development?

A thousand treatises, setting sail on oceans of ink, have been penned in response to these questions. I personally have argued that religious faith is a necessary part of civilization, and an indispensable tool in the cultivation and taming of the wild individual ego. This view, however, is not shared by all.

Jean Meslier’s Testament

We will look at the life and writings of one such man, the dour Frenchman Jean Meslier (1678-1733). His Testament remains one of the most damning indictments of religion ever written, and must be given careful consideration by every fair-minded enquirer into these matters.

He was a quiet and withdrawn parish priest in the town of Etrepigny in Champagne, France. He had not wanted this profession; in his Testament, he makes it clear that he was ordained out of a desire to please his pious parents. He was never a believer, but kept this secret carefully hidden during his life.

The strain produced by such a disconnection between belief and profession must have been overwhelming. He died at the age of fifty-five, having served his local community dutifully and uneventfully for over thirty years.

But he left an incendiary tract to the world in his will. Among his papers discovered after his death was a book inscribed to his parishoners as a “bequest.” What he was unable to say during his life, apparently, he shouted out to the world from beyond the grave. For here was the most bleak and despairing endorsement of materialism and atheism that has ever been written. Let us examine this strange book.

It was not published in full until the 1860s, as its contents were deemed too disturbing for general consumption. Some French Enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire, d’Holbach, and Diderot had released summaries before this time, however.

Meslier begins by describing how he became an atheist. His doubts began from an examination of the Bible. He was unsettled by the contradictions, uncertainties, and absurdities found there; unwilling or unable to interpret such things allegorically, he began to fill with resentment.

Promises of immortality he found unconvincing. The idea of a God who would create Hell as a depository institution for bad souls was to him unforgiveable cruelty: “Is there in nature a man so cruel as to wish in cold blood to torment, I do not say his fellow beings, but any sentient being whatever?”

Such a God could only be a wicked, cold being, unworthy of worship. To him it was also self-evident that it was God himself who created the evils which he then sought to punish.

In response to the argument that religious belief was natural, Meslier held that just the opposite was true:

All children are atheists—they have no idea of God…Men believe in God only on the word of those who have no more idea of him than they themselves…Very few people would have a god if care had not been taken to give them one.

Meslier even attacked the idea of Christ as a positive figure. To him, the recalcitrant Jew was nothing but a “fanatic, a misanthrope, who, preaching to the wretched, advises them to be poor, to combat and extinguish nature, to hate pleasure, to seek sufferings, and to despise themselves.”

What bitterness! And yet Meslier is not finished. There is nothing after death except the void. God, he believes, is naught but a delusion, a figment of an overactive imagination. It has been created from the dawn of history by a joint conspiracy of clerics and rulers to keep the mass of people subservient and distracted.

And does religious belief contribute to the shaping of morality? No, Meslier responds:

The nations where this fiction is established, are they remarkable for the morality of their conduct?…We see haughty tyrants, courtiers, countless extortioners, unscrupulous magistrates, imposters, adulterers, libertines, prostitutes, thieves, and rogues of all kinds, who have never doubted the existence of a vindictive God, or the punishments of hell, or the joys of Paradise.

Even the ancient Greek and Roman sages, Meslier argued, were unwilling to the face the stark truth of this reality. Despite being philosophers, they always genuflected to the gods of their day and era.

And so what, then, does this Frenchman think the ideal society should look like? He cast his vote in favor of a communistic utopia. Man could be happy if he abolished the ideas of privilege and property, for these were the root of all evil. All property should be nationalized by the state; every man should have his health and welfare guaranteed; and possessions should be held in common.

A page of Meslier’s testament

What are we to make of this testament? A man’s ideas are windows of his soul. We sense immediately the bitterness of a man resentful of a life wasted in a profession unsuited to him. This alone is a lesson to us, and a cautionary tale for the ages. Unable or unwilling to seek out his life’s passion, he resigned himself to secret rage, and finally, to despair.

We must grant him his due regarding some of the absurdities found in theology. And yet, it escapes him that perhaps religious doctrines exist to serve subtle moral purposes, and that scientific fact is not their major concern.

His opinions about religion epitomize all the myopia common to materialism and atheism. He forgets the profoundly inspirational qualities of faith; he ignores religion’s storehouse of literature, myth, and consoling rituals; and he entirely forgets the critical importance of religion in passing on a culture’s moral values.

Had he understood the nature of man more deeply, he would have understood that only philosophers and saints can be induced to do good by appeals to reason alone; for the average man, only the fears of eternal damnation will keep his baser instincts in check. Religion is the best unsleeping sentry created by history.

His suggestions for creating a perfect society have been proven wrong by experience. He seeks to replace one god with another god, that of socialism. And here again, his inexperience with government and leadership reveal themselves starkly.

Despite its imperfections, flaws, and dead ends, Jean Meslier’s Testament is still worth reading as an examination of the atheistic mind. It is a disturbing picture; for here is a man not at peace with himself, a man who lacked the resolution to follow his own path, a man who has been corroded at last by hate and repressed rage.

It is, perhaps, the best admonition against the danger of living an unfulfilled life that has yet been produced.

Submit an article for ROK and get paid

Starting in March, we will pay you in Litecoin cryptocurrency for any article of yours that we publish. If you have something to say to your fellow man, now is a great time to do it. Click here to learn all the details.

No, I don’t say this. I say that it is an essential part of human culture and human expression, as well as the repository of a culture’s moral codes. Without religion, human life for many would become a meaningless charade ending in a cold death. You are the one who chooses to use the word “manipulate.”

There is absolutely no evidence that moral values are self-evident and were not derived from religion (whether created by man or God). In fact, the preponderance of evidence suggests morals have to be enforced and are not inherent.

The belief that the dumbasses need religion to keep them in line, while the philosophers, the men who can regulate their lives through the use of their own reason, can take religion or leave it as they see fit, goes way back in Western philosophy. You find the idea in Plato’s writings, for example.

The natural inequality of men has fated the majority to live lives of toil and hardship. To take away from people the source of strength in their lives, to tell them that this life is a meaningless struggle ending in oblivion, is cruel and unnecessary.

You are also overlooking the fact that religion serves an essential moral function. As religion declines, so rises indiscipline and chaos, which is what we see today. There needs to be a silent sentry out there, making sure people’s natural tendencies to antisocial behavior are kept in check.
Only fear of eternal damnation performs this function. Man must be encouraged to do good by appeals to eternal life, and frightened into compliance by fear of hell. It cannot be otherwise.

The results of a few early investigations suggested little or no relation between religiosity and crime (e.g., Hirschi and Stark 1969). In contrast, more recent studies, as well as meta-analyses (quantitative syntheses) of the literature, have converged on a consistent conclusion: belief in God bears a statistically significant, albeit relatively weak, association with lower levels of criminal and antisocial behavior, including physical aggression toward others (a statistically significant finding is one that would be extremely unlikely to be observed if the null hypothesis of a zero correlation between the variables were true). For example, in a meta-analysis of sixty studies that yielded seventy-nine correlations, Baier and Wright (2001) found a statistically significant, but weak, negative correlation (r=-.12) between religiosity and crime (correlations range from -1.0 to +1.0, and a correlation with an absolute value of .1 is typically regarded as weak in magnitude). Notably, all seventy-nine correlations were negative, although most fell in the range of -.05 to -.20. These findings run counter to Dennett’s (2006) claim, seconded by Dawkins (2006), that there is no statistical association between religiosity and criminality.

Still, this link appears to be qualified by other variables. The results of several studies suggest that the correlation between religiosity and crime is moderated by attendance at churches or other places of worship, with more frequent attenders being at especially low risk for crime (Ellis 1985; Good and Willoughby 2006). In addition, the diminished risk for aggression and antisocial behavior appears to be more closely associated with intrinsic religiosity, in which individuals view religion as personally important for its own sake (e.g., “I try hard to live all of my life according to my religious beliefs”) than with extrinsic religiosity, in which individuals view religion as a means to a personal end (e.g., “The primary purpose of prayer is to gain relief and protection”) (Bouchard et al. 1999).

More generally, religiosity is moderately and positively associated with self-control, a trait closely tied to impulse control; again, this association is especially pronounced for people with high levels of intrinsic religiosity (McCullough and Willoughby 2009). In work from our laboratory recently submitted for publication (Lilienfeld et al. 2014), we even found a slight but statistically significant tendency for religious nonbelievers (including professed atheists and agnostics) to report higher levels of certain traits relevant to psychopathic personality (psychopathy), especially weak impulse control and lack of empathy, relative to religious believers. Needless to say, however, the weak magnitude of these associations in no way implies that most atheists are psychopathic, let alone psychopaths.

Other correlational data point to a consistent association between religion and prosocial behavior. For example, in a meta-analysis of forty studies of adolescents, religiosity was moderately and positively associated with prosocial behaviors, such as volunteer work, altruistic acts, and empathic concern toward others (Cheung and Yeung 2011). Broadly mirroring other findings on the intrinsic-extrinsic religiosity distinction, the relation between religiosity and prosocial behavior was most marked for participants with high levels of private (rather than public) religious participation, such as individuals who pray when alone.

In other words, religion seems to exert some effect on making people behave, but the strength of its influence varies according to other factors.

These findings don’t make religion “true” in some metaphysical sense, of course. They just show that religion has empirically observable effects on human behavior, much like Game.

I don’t see it as “condescending” but as reality. The average person is so harried and harassed with the daily struggle for existence, that he has little time for speculative thought.
And this is why the common man will never listen to people like you for long.
And do you want to know why, Gundog?
Because at the end of the day, you have nothing to offer humanity except despair and nihilism. That’s the final conclusion of atheism. People want a life filled with the rich pageantry of stories, consolatory rituals, and rules.
The person who is arrogant here is YOU, not me. You are the one who thinks that your limited experience on this earth–what, maybe 30 or 40 years–can sit in judgment on the traditions of humanity that have been around for 5000 years.
History is on my side, Gundog, no matter what you think. Religion has been with man since the dawn of time.
And it will always be here.

I’m not sure it’s condescending, as much as a sad reality. I would agree with Plato on this one. Most politicians agree with this philosophy, by the way (see the section on Leo Strauss, father of Neoconservatism below)

You seem to be quite willing to divorce the social benefits of religion from its truth claims, which serves the purpose of keeping you at the top of the intellectual heap. I agree with those who call you out as condescending and smug. As I said above, no man of integrity is going to believe something just because it benefits him. And no stable society can be built on things the majority of people believe are convenient lies. Unless you want a society built on lies. Convenient or not.

Take a stand. Is religion true or not? And if so, what is that truth and why should anyone believe it and what are the implications of those truths?

No mature mind asks whether religious stories, myths, and miracles are “true.” What matters is the purpose they serve, not whether they are demonstrable fact.
See, this is where the atheists never can get past the whole “truth” thing. Of course no rational mind literally believes all the stories of miracles.
Because it doesn’t matter. What matters is that the people call out for them. The people want them and create them.
If you had a deeper understanding of history, you would know that religion does not create superstition, but rather, it checks and controls it. If religion did not exist, the fears and neuroses of man would multiply into a thousand competing fragments. The stories of headless saints and asbestos saints walking through fire were created not by the Church, but by the people. Over time, the Church has had to make concessions to the mythologies wanted and desired by the people.

Yes, if only I had a deeper understanding of history like you do I would see things just as you do and there would be no need for discussion and debate. Pity the poor ignorance you are forced to endure, Oh, Enlightened One!

Are you sure you’re not really an atheist trolling the believers here? “Quick! Call the Ministry of Truth! We’ve found someone to replace Winston Smith.”

I notice you keep speaking of the hoi polloi and how religion is necessary to keep their ignorant excesses in check. You’re worse than condescending and smug. You’re an arrogant ass. It is the mark of the tyrant and would be tyrant that he put himself above the people and talk of doing what is best for them. In this way he justifies every selfish, self serving, destructive action he takes. Name one despot who didn’t justify his murderous actions in the name of “for the good of the people”?

But also notice I did not speak of believing the parables and stories of the Bible as true in order to believe In religion. I spoke of believing something, actually, in your case, merely claiming to believe something, because it benefits you and not because it is true. I then spoke about the “truth claims” of the Christian faith.

“Who do men say that I am?” asked Jesus … “Who do YOU say that I am?”

“Who do you say that I am?” is the central and essential question upon which the entire Christian faith stands or falls. An honest man cannot “believe” in Jesus because it benefits him. He can only believe in Jesus and His claims about Himself because they are true.

“Name one despot who didn’t justify his murderous actions in the name of “for the good of the people”?”

I can tell you that this is occurring right now right under the noses of most Americans. Our government has been arming and funding al-Nusra and Al-Qaeda in Syria to try to knock Assad out of power. Christians have typically made up about 10% of the Syrian population and before the civil war lived a much more peaceful existence (although not entirely). Due to our own government funding these “moderate Islamic rebels”, an estimated 600,000-700,000 Christians have been displaced from Syria due to Islamic extremism against them. The US government says that removing Assad is “good for the people” of Syria….

Bullshit. They’re trying to remove Assad because he rejected the US-backed Qatar gas pipeline project that they wanted to build through Syria. That’s the REAL reason why the US, Israel, Turkey, Qatar, and Saudis want Assad out. And as a side result of international greed, peaceful people in Syria are suffering big time… and yet our government pretends to hold Christianity in high regard. I’m tired of the lies.

The only problem with Atheism is most Atheist I see are Feminist and buy into the “protect women” shit. Steve Shives is a perfect example of this. He proves that just because you’re an Atheist, doesn’t mean you can’t believe it stupid shit.

I’ve only met a small handful of self proclaimed atheists who are genuinely happy and/or content people. The vast majority that I’ve met throughout my life are usually pretty bitter, and highly insecure in their own beliefs. They seem to be searching for some reason to justify their own world view, usually via condemning, sneering at, mocking and preaching at others, which seems to me rather interesting when you get down to it.

Insecurity isn’t necessarily bad thing. It just means people aren’t content to accept something without proof. I think continually questioning why we’re all here or what this all means is a good thing. It leads to new discoveries and ideas. Total acceptance leads to idle minds and hands.

I mean raging insecurity. I don’t mind being mindful of one’s own beliefs, but it’s quite another thing to actively search for any hint of somebody expressing a religious thought in order to attack them. And I don’t mean somebody coming up to the atheist and proselytizing, I mean just saying something to a friend that the atheist overhears. Now in fairness, most of those types are college students, but they exist as actual adults as well, they’re just a bit more subtle and smug about it.

Personally I don’t care what somebody believes, as long as they’re peaceful. If somebody wants to discuss religion, or lack thereof, that’s fine and I’m game. But doing witch hunts against even a whiff of Christianity (or, conversely, atheism) in the air? No thanks.

Those people are the minority of the “atheists” I have encountered but everybody seems to think they are the majority. There was one atheist dude in school who you describe to a tee. He thought he was smarter than the rest and tried too hard and formed the atheist student group, etc. I remember arguing him at the bar a few times (and I’m basically a don’t give a fuck agnostic – I read too many comics books to rule out the possibility of higher powers, but can’t believe in anything without proof). He fucking sucked. Anecdotal, but most of my friends are super liberal friends and atheists but you never hear them speak about it.

It’s the plague of modern society – too much time on our hands so everybody gets up in everybody else’s business.

We are bitter because we’re trying to enjoying life without religious indoctrination. one can’t even do that with the internet: a product birthed by the scientific revolution! Please, if one is going to say they’re a Christian at least follow your own rules.

“You’re free to believe anything you wish, and I don’t have a need to mock you for that..”
That’s fine and dandy. But isn’t hypocritical for you to use a computer? because it something that science has engineered not simply prayed for. You remind me like the James ossuary. you claim to be the real thing, but you’re nothing but a fraud.

Notice how these internet atheists put more time and energy into religion than the average internet user.
My theory is that most atheists are children of bible thumper parents who, having been raised by such virulent snobs, grow up hating their parents and all things religion. It’s understandable. You can believe in God without being a weak-willed bible thumper constantly thinking every thought in term of “of the Loooorrrrrd” or not. People like that irritate people who actually read the bible instead of waving it around.
So their children hate God and become atheists. But, having been raised by weak people who needed something to bend the knee to, something to be outraged at, and something to need moral panic over in order to escape reality (that their lives suck and they are horrible people), are also weak people needing something to bend the knee too.
And the SJWs learned from the moral outrage specialists of the 1980s. Same methods, same terminology. Only the thumpers didn’t have social media in their heyday.
So it’s no surprise that atheists can’t let it go. And little surprise that most of them are socialists too, worshipping the state as it satisfies their weakness as would have God otherwise. This is why statism is becoming a spreading and even worse religion, especially due to these atheists thinking they are the good guys while supporting a religion that disguises itself as government and has a bigger record of mass murder than the church could ever have hoped for.

They’re a rather frightening lot, the crusading atheists. Run of the mill, go along to get along atheists I have zero problem with, although they too do tend to lean hard left. But the crusaders, my oh my, their zeal, bitterness, condemnations, name calling, snarling, sneering and hatefulness is on par with the worst of what they describe from historical theists. It’s a wonder that they don’t notice this fault in their own character.

Nope, both of my moms are not if fact bible-thumpers. Kind Wiccans, sure. (no one is perfect.)
I don’t support socialism or communism, however, anarchy is the best politics by far. But as long as religion still is in the public-sphere no advancements can be made for science, history or livelihoods. of course, you couldn’t understand that too in depth in praying to T.F.S.M. can you?

You think you’re better than me?! You fucking sperm-ridden carpet muncher. I bet you suck so many Dicks and Dykes that you could start a unhumorous 1960’s show.
We both are fully aware that Jesus Christ is only a enjoyable word to slander. If you truly believe in imaginary messiah present something for all of us to see as reasonable and undeniable.
I don’t need a horoscope to prophecy the you can’t do that much.

Sigh, I waited for you to place something palpable on the table for your believe in Cuckianityannnnnd you return with nothing.
Typical, but I guess the fool is me. Thinking that an idiot would return anything so easily refutable.
If I knew that people like religious lunatics were going to abuse their freedom so quickly…I would’ve retire from the marine corps sooner…

Such icons should reserved for people who began their movements in respect they deserve. E.g. Socrates for western wisdom. Lao Tzu for eastern philosophy. Antoine Lavoisier for modern chemistry. YHWH the Nazarene for religion. Charles Darwin for biology. Albert Eisenstein for relative physics.

There may be no true Scotsmen except for those who can be defined as a Scotsmen. like Limmy.

What really funny is your G-d keeps ordering His mindless slaves to commit genocide and yet you Christians people accept us to believe you’re ‘children of peace’
You want me to stop? Then give me a reason to think that the bible has evidence for itself!

No, I wouldn’t dream of telling you to stop. Your rantings and ravings are way too humorous. I must ask though….what Bible are you reading that is espousing Christians to commit genocide? I think you’re confusing the Old Testament with Christianity. If you knew anything about the Bible, you would know Christianity didn’t even exist in the OT.
That point aside, God wasn’t telling us to wage unending wars against the “infidels” (you’re probably confusing us with the muslims…it’s ok, you’re forgiven). The OT was a lot of God telling His followers to “go there, do this, don’t do this, etc.”; a historical account, if you will. I would love to see anything in the New Testament that preaches ongoing holy wars. To my knowledge, there is none. Simply a lot of miracles, teachings of about loving your neighbor, and salvation.

My mistake I thought Christian were monotheist; not polytheist.
You guys are to summit toward the G-d of the bible both old & new testament, right. So, of course you blindly agree with command Deut 7.1-2 nad Deut 20:16-18 and the closest modern “holy war” Christians, the bible VS people who want to be themselves /liberated.
Again, if you wish for me to leave. Then give me irrefutable proof, like any outside references of the Ark, the tower of Babel, Samson, Hephaestus, Even Jesus or Paul.
But you won’t-CAN’T!

All of you guys are so immature I could donate everyone in a cryobank!

“My mistake I thought Christian were monotheist; not polytheist.”
I’m sure that was intended as snark and if you knew anything about what you’re bashing, you’d know the answer to this simple question.

Thanks for referencing those verses that completely made my previous point. Those were a one-time command that God gave to the JEWS (not Christians) in their quest to find their Promised Land. This was not a decree to forever go out an kill all. You keep telling me to give you irrefutable proof of the events in the article but do nothing to back up your own. If you are so sure us Christians are the heartless genocidal maniacs you make us out to be, where are all the killings done in the name of Jesus? For simplicity’s sake, let’s narrow it down to the last 5-6 decades. I know how you guys love to bring up the Crusades (even though it was in response to a muslim invasion), but let’s focus on more modern times. I’m sure you will have absolutely NO problem finding article after article of Christians beheading nonbelievers or strapping bombs onto their chests screaming “God is good!”
Honestly, why do you even care what I, or others, believe? You really need to get that chip off your shoulder, buddy. I’ll be praying for you.

Your source? Who/What are you quoting? Christians do not refer to God with a lower case “g” so that leads me to believe that the “god with us” was just a generic saying they had (similar to “In God We Trust” we have on US currency) or you’re trying to be a bit snarky by making it lower case. If it’s the latter, it undermines your credibility in a debate to misrepresent a quote.
That being said, so what if they had something on their belt that said “god with us”? The USA has “In God We Trust” on every bit of currency and “One Nation, Under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance, but we do so much that goes directly against the teachings of Christianity. As the libs and atheists like to say, “we have never been a Christian nation” yet we have obvious Judeo-Christian references all throughout our culture. I’m willing to wager your example is a similar situation as there is no evidence in the link I shared previously that Hitler used Christianity in any capacity as a means to commit genocide on the Jews. Jesus Christ was Himself a Jew, so there’d be that bit of logical contradiction Hitler would have to overcome. Was Hitler a Christian? Dunno, maybe. Did he use his religion to justify genocide? The evidence says no.
This debate is becoming a bit old and tiresome. It’s obvious you have a chip on your shoulder and are merely out to have your “AHA!” moment against Christians. Keep ranting and raving if you want. No one here is going to stop you, but I myself am going to move onto more engaging conversations where people are interested in sincere dialogue. Peace be with you.

A huge number of the ones I’ve met are also adamant socialists. The exceptions are usually libertarians (of which I am one, libertarian that is, not atheist) and maybe like one or two unicorn right wing atheist non-libertarians.

It rather informs me that they really haven’t rejected religion, they’ve simply rejected the kind of God they wish to worship. In this case, they bow before the altar of the State, and act in every way like a devout religious person otherwise, they just don’t realize it.

Atheism is not good for society as a whole, but it is inevitable among people with a certain IQ and certain personality traits.

I am an atheist, probably because I know more about how the world works than the average person, but I certainly wouldn’t want the people who do not know as much to be anything else but Christians (and by that I mean Christians like John III Sobieski, not “Christians” like Pope Francis).

Smug or not, it’s still the truth. Higher IQ lends itself to further questioning what you see and hear. I realized at a pretty young age that Bible stories were just fairy tales written to teach me something about life. I believed Noah gathered all animals 2 by 2 on an ark as much as I believed the Big Bad Wolf blew down the houses of the 3 Little Pigs.

Why did I question Bible stories as a kid? Because I’m smarter than the average person. I was smarter than kids my age. I knew that after my first visit to a zoo, there was no way in hell (pun intended) Noah built a boat that could fit every single animal in it. I was 8 at the time, and that kernel of doubt stuck with me from then on. “If the ark story isn’t real, I bet not all the other stories I hear in church are real, either.”

You mistake scientific questioning with philosophy or religion. They do not exist in the same house. To assume that one can substitute for the other is a mistake atheists and religious people both make.

on the same note, philosophy and religion shouldn’t be in the same category. Philosophy is pondering the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of existence, while also admitting to not fully know the means or the end. Religion, on the other hand, proclaims to know the ‘why’ and ‘how’, and has already fully realized the means and the end.

scientific questioning is much closer to philosophy than not. I’d say scientific questioning almost directly leads to a substitution to religion.

Physical proof negates the entire notion of faith, which is what Christianity is based upon. A Christian providing proof is a Christian who does not have faith, meaning that if Christianity is correct then he’s basically saying that he doubts God.

Why would we need physical proof anyway? I cede that everything science can discover in the universe is strictly in the domain of science and I do not question their results (except insofar as their math or evidence is skewed, just like other scientists would).

“… providing proof is a Christian who does not have faith…” Lets me get this straight…the Jesus’s disciples didn’t see Jesus, as well Paul. Adam and eve didn’t see God. Moses didn’t see the “burning bush.” which is not a problem for me.
However, if one is say this events happen and try to convent anyone evidence is not only wanted but it should also be required.

None come to God but by faith alone. That’s the high and low of it. Jesus was human, ergo, he could be seen, however believing he was the Son of God requires faith, which is really what the whole persecution and crucifixion was about, people’s refusal to engage faith. How did he do XYZ miracle? By faith alone. He even loses faith himself (“Father, why hast Thou forsaken me..”) for a moment, and coming back to it he finds resurrection. This isn’t about not seeing human flesh and believing, it’s a larger question when dealing with faith. This is why “Christians” going out and trying to scientifically prove God are mistaken. You either accept Him on faith, or you don’t.

I can say the events happened, but I can’t prove them, all I can offer is faith that they did. Not a biggie really, and nothing to get worked up over in my opinion. At the end of the day even the most hard assed scientist has to eventually come to a statement of faith, because there will always be one thing that cannot be proven without it, which is, the moment right before the beginning of the universe, or if one is a perpetual-universe type, then explaining how that holds water since infinity cannot be measured and as such does not stand as a standard of scientific proof.

Hey man, I didn’t write the rules, I’m just letting you know them. And as I said, I cede all of the world of science to science without so much as a peep in protest. Science does not define religion, religion does not define science. They need not be contradictory.

If it’s a matter of blind faith then it makes no difference what you believe. Why Christianity and not Norse, Greek religions or Hinduism or Buddhism or all of them at once?

Actually. you’re wrong. As usual. Christians claim that God created the universe, but that contradicts the first law of thermodynamics. Evolution proved that something did exist without intervention.

If Jesus was real he would’ve left a footprint (figuratively). Well then where is it,…hm? There’s nothing to found, besides lies.
Come on. people of ROK embrace the religious-less euphoria and it’ll set you free.

So God doesn’t exist because he contradicts a law in a universe he created? I guess computer game programmers don’t exist because they can program around or utterly ignore the rulesets they place in the games they develop.

Pretty much. After I read it I was astonished that so many people believed this actually happened. I could understand believing that for its time but not today. I guess that whole Heaven/Hell thing really works.

I don’t see how Dunning-Kruger applies here. I was a kid, so I was thinking in kid terms. I was taught by church that ‘magic’ was bad. but how could someone build a container for every single animal in the world without magic? Or how could someone part the sea without using magic? Or how could someone come back to life without magic?

In my child brain, I knew Bible stories were teaching me to do the right thing; don’t be lazy, respect your parents, fight for what you believe in, etc. All good lessons. But when they tried to tell me that shit REALLY happened is when I called bullshit.

The persistent atheist meme, “I am smarter than most of the people I know. The people I know who are not as smart as me are believers in God. I am an atheist, therefore I am an atheist because I am smarter than most people (no longer smarter than just most the people you know).

It’s an interesting argument from authority but in the case of the atheist, HE’S THE AUTHORITY!

Ha! I never noticed that! What fallacy would that be? The Self-Referential Fallacy? Is there such thing? Should be.

The Dunning-Kruger Eefect applies, or could apply, here, because the less intelligent you really are the smarter you think you are and less able you are to see that you are wrong.

You say you are an atheist because you are smart, completely leaving out all of the hi IQ people who are believers, who think their intelligence has led them to their beliefs.

It’s sort of a twist on the argument from ignorance. I’m right because I’m smart. I’m not really as smart as I think therefore I don’t realize I could be wrong.

you did quite a bit of inserting here. where exactly did I say I was an atheist?

Yes, I’m smarter than most people I know. No, I never said most who are not smart as me are believers in God. One isn’t an atheist because he is smarter than most people, one’s an atheist due to an absence or personal disproving of religion.

See how I did that without a caps lock, made up pseudo-intelligent terms, straw-men, or exclamation points? Yelling and using big words doesn’t make you right.

I did not directly call you an atheist. I said that reasoning is a consistent atheist meme. And don’t be so touchy. You may not be in the band but you’re marching to the beat! Smile.

An honest mistake. Not as bad as, “Oh, you’re not catholic. You quoted Aquinas. Here, let me put my pecker away.” (Totally irrelevant and inappropriate! It’s not my fault. I have A condition I learned about using Google.)

No you didn’t!! And I am suitably impressed and NOT trying to be ironic or facetious! I am appreciating our discussion and I would not want you to think I do not respect you or your intelligence or the quality of our discussion. Unlike with some others on here today! Ha!

The implication that atheists are smart and the religious are dumb.
You may very well be smart and don’t give two shits about religion. Cool; we all make our own choices in life. But trying to establish causality between intelligence and atheism or lack of intelligence and religion is troubling.
Stephen Colbert, C.S. Lewis, Georges Lemaitre, Gregor Mendel, and Francis Collins: Men of intelligence and also men of science, some of whom have shed intellectual/mental sweat to bring about the Big Bang Theory and modern genetics. Not exactly stupid people.

“Smug or not, it’s still the truth. Higher IQ lends itself to further questioning what you see and hear. I realized at a pretty young age that Bible stories were just fairy tales written to teach me something about life.
Why did I question Bible stories as a kid? Because I’m smarter than the average person. I was smarter than kids my age. ”

Look man, I can read between the lines. You stopped believing because you thought you were smarter than everyone else. And if you want to say, “I’m an atheist because I’m smarter than other people,” then just say it! But don’t backtrack and say you didn’t mean what you meant.

That whole “comprehension deficient” thing is real cute. If you think I’m dumb or what I say is dumb, then say it straight. I’ll respect that more than hiding behind pretenses of higher intelligence.

We can have a civilized, thoughtful conversation or we can trade passive-aggressive barbs until we’re dust. If you want the former, cool let’s talk and maybe we’ll learn something. But if you prefer the latter, then go fly a goddamn kite because I have better things to do.

Nope. I stopped believing because the stories were bullshit. If someone just as smart or smarter than me chooses to believe whatever book they read, more power to them. For me though, tipping my bullshit meter was enough for me to stop trusting that this shit really happened.

//Higher IQ lends itself to further questioning what you see and hear. //

1. So, how much have you then questioned your own atheism? Care to name all the Christian books within systematic theology and apologetic that you have read?

2. With the given premises (1) that an all powerful God exists, creator of the universe, and (2) that the Noah account shall be interpreted literally, in contrast to allegorically, why would it be impossible for God to put a limited number of animals on a boat?

3. Give me the statistical hypothesis testing of life spontaneously self-create from a rock, without any divine intervention whatsoever. Give me the peer reviewed science paper(s). What was the probability.

4. DNA contains coded information. All empirical data show that coded information has an intelligent source. In the cell there are mechanisms that read and effectuate the commands in DNA. Show me how both information and implementing the information, can be self-created without any intelligent intervention. Give me the probability.

In addition, fanatic atheist Carl Sagan only need a some prime numbers to “know” that the source was intelligent, and no cosmic accident. Compare that to the level and amount of information contained within DNA.

1. I haven’t questioned “my own” atheism, because I never said i was an atheist. I’m extremely agnostic, though. Neither science nor religion knows with 100% certainty what our beginnings or endings will be.

2. given YOUR premises, sure. all animals can fit on one container because by your premises, God is all powerful. but I propose that it’s not me that has to disprove God. It’s your fight to PROVE God. Why is that? Because without taught knowledge of God/Allah/Yahweh whoever one worships, you can consider that person a blank slate that knows no deity. So your supposition that there is an all-powerful deity has to be proven, since the “base-state” is there no deity.

3. can’t I just ask you to prove that divine intervention created life by giving me a statistical hypothesis?

4. *shrug* I don’t know anything further than college biology about DNA. I guess you got me there, huh?

That’s not what I claimed. I became agnostic because my child mind thought if one story sounds like bullshit, why shouldn’t i approach every story in this book as bullshit?

Another of your missteps; I said due to my being smarter than average, I was and still am more inquisitive than the average person. But that’s not why I became a disbeliever. My curiosity led to me asking questions the average child my age didn’t ask, about all subjects. The fact that I doubted the bible is because the story didn’t pass the bullshit test as a child.

“It’s your fight to PROVE God. Why is that? Because without taught knowledge of God/Allah/Yahweh whoever one worships, you can consider that person a blank slate that knows no deity.”

Actually, the data coming out from child redevelopment specialist is that the human child is “pre-wired” to believe in God. Sorry, I’m in my iPad and it’s a bitch to jump around, collecting citations you can google yourself.

Also, if I’m not mistaken, every human culture ever discovered/studied has included a belief in God. Many smaller gods, yes. But also a belief in one, supreme God.

Oh, and in one source I read, the researcher is an atheist and was not thrilled with his conclusions.

I have not considered that, because I highly doubt Noah had the technology to collect and store DNA. So now I am to make that huge reach that Noah was a genealogist?

And let’s say that is what happened. Noah was a genealogist and had the technology to store DNA samples for 40 days. Why wouldn’t the bible just state that Noah collected DNA samples? Why did he need to build a big-ass boat to tote DNA samples and his family?

I’ve met a few good atheists, but in my experience most of the ones I knew were quite low-consciousness, smug, self-centered people.
There were not that satisfied with their lives, despite living in one of the world’s finest countries, but hey God doesn’t exist so it’s all good right?

Your point was cogent as well. The modern predilection to believe science contains not only truth, but is the only source of truth, is a dogma of the atheist faith as unshakeable as a belief is transubstantiation and with about as much supporting evidence.

My IQ is far above Mensa entry level and I am a Christian. Most hyper-intelligent people I know are believers. This in sharp contrast to semi-intelligent people (IQ 105-115), too stupid/ignorant to see their own stupidity/ignorance, i.e. Marxist college professors, – these people tend to be atheists.

There is a big problem with discussing the social and personal benefits of the Christian religion separate from its truth claims. Any man of integrity will reject a lie even if it benefits him. And Jesus tells his followers to follow him even though it will mean their deaths. It is its truth claims that give Christianity its power. It is because they believe Alllah will reward them with paradise that the jihadis will wear a suicide vest.

Which is why you should never show up for a religious war without a religion.

I’ve wondered what happened to Meslier’s original manuscripts. Apparently he left 3-4 complete handwritten copies of his book when he died, and the church authorities who found them didn’t destroy them for some reason, but copied and circulated them even further. Meslier’s message must have impressed some key people early on for this to happen.

The historian Alan Kors argues that French theologians and philosophers had to construct “atheism” as a coherent theoretical concept in the 17th Century to test arguments from competing schools of thought for the existence of god. Atheism became a kind of default hypothesis that these arguments had to refute. Apparently these intellectuals did their job on atheism a little too well when smart people who studied these debates found atheism more plausible than arguments against it. Meslier might have known about these debates when he wrote his Testament.

The Catholic Church has always seemed to embrace their doubters and skeptics. Mother Theresa BEGGED her Confessor to destroy her diaries after her death because they contained her deepest doubts and fears about God and her feeling that she was wasting her life serving the poor. The Church refused to follow her wishes (she had taken a Vow of Obedience so they were within their rights) and I believe have published those diaries.

Why?

Because the Roman Church believes that doubt is essential to true faith. That faith that is absolute, or even too certain, is false faith. They do not run from the fact that Jesus cried out on the cross, “My God, my God! Why have you forsaken me?” In fact, many point to those words as proof that the Gospel records are true history. Why would people manufacturing a new religion record their Savior expressing doubts about his mission or God’s support for it? Because it really happened.

That is because without a God or hope of Heaven this earth is all they’ve got and people need a reasons and a goal to live for, to give their life meaning. Therefore they only have this life to implement their Vision of the Best World Possible.

Charles Murray cites the four main sources of human happiness as: family, vocation, community and faith. If you look at Jean Meslier’s life, you find that he never started his own family, he hated his job, he could never relate to his religious parishioners, and he despised all religion. His life was completely missing of any of the four main realms of happiness.

An interesting distinction, but with a difference? It is what they call themselves and it’s not like they’re Bruce Jenner claiming to be a women and we can just pull down their panties and prove they have a penis.

Haha, yes it’s what they call themselves. They grasp at what is material but incomplete. Faith fills in the gaps. Some cling to scientism, others politics, etc. Among my family we call them non-believers. You are correct, they attempt to fill the void with material things and various ideologies.

i’ve met reasonable, thoughtful atheists before. roosh seems to fall into that category, for example. nevertheless, for the most part, i have trouble fathoming atheism. it seems at least as ridiculous as most religious views of the world. if you struggle with faith, it seems more reasonable to be an agnostic, which is the way i lean.

Agnostic is a comfortable thing to be. Like a moderate. A middle-of-the-roader. A fence sitter.

I myself am agnostic about many things. In fact, those who knew me in my younger days would be surprised to learn the number of things I am now less certain of.

But not the Big Questions. God. Jesus. The resurrection. Eternal Life. On those issues I made up my mind about a long time ago and amazingly, nothing has happened in the past 40 years to change or cause me to question those decisions.

No new information. No new circumstances. No tragedies. No personal disasters. Not that those things haven’t happened to me. Sadly, yes. But none of them have caused me to question the Truth of the Big Answers to the Big Questions.

A few years ago, I even experienced what the mystics call, “The Dark Night of the Soul.” It’s when all your faith leaves you and you’re left with nothing but the empty, cold, impersonal world to deal with on your own.

Seriously, I lost the consciousness of the reality of God in my heart and mind. I’m not even sure how or when it happened. Just one day I looked. . . and it was gone! I looked out at the world and saw it as an atheist must see it! I’m not sure how much more I want to make of it, but it was rather unnerving. God was nowhere. He did not exist at all in my consciousness. My new default viewpoint was to see the world as void of God. If I wanted to imagine the world with God, I had to actively put Him into it all. The exact opposite of what I’d done for the past 37 years!

It was very strange.

Interestingly, it was my rational faith that brought me through it. The intellectual decisions I made about God, Jesus, the Bible, my Faith itself. Those kept me focused. But my “faith” was pure intellect. Pure reason. Pure logic. Not a drop of emotion or “feelings.”

Humpty Dumpty had fallen and shattered into a million pieces (though it didn’t feel like a disaster or a tragedy. It just WAS. It was a FACT. God was NOT.). But it was O.K. because I had in my mind all the plans and schematics for putting Humpty back together again.

And several years later, I have. It’s different. My faith no longer constrains my behavior as it once did. But that just might be because I’m getting to be an old bugger who doesn’t give a shit what other people think of me! LOL!!

Very interesting viewpoint and I believe I have gone through my own “Dark Night of Soul” where I questioned my faith. I wouldn’t say that it was strange; more like terrifying pondering the thought of there being absolutely no life after this one…nothingness. Like you, my reasoning and faith brought me through it and I emerged changed. Enlightened? Not really. Just more firm in my faith.
Thanks for sharing your story.

No more ridiculous than rejecting thousands of other beliefs: Santa Claus, fire gods make the volcanos erupt, wind gods, sun gods, and not ridiculous when every prediction made by these religious systems are false, when prayer can be shown to be no better than random chance, and prophecies are false. I view religionists as people who havent made the leap to full human maturity yet, they still need their crutch to get along,which is fine with me. As long as they dont beat me over the head with it.

i think we’re pretty similar in our views. all belief systems seem ridiculous to me. i do like jesus’s teaching though, and the last few years with my amazing catholic, non-western wife has really made me that there’s something there with christianity, but yeah, there’s also obviously plenty of silliness.

it’s much the same with SJWs. most people need to believe in something, so when an SJW abandons religion, social justice takes its place. they believe that the right combination of tweaking legislation, public shaming, and threatening people’s jobs will usher in paradise on earth, no god required.

As opposed to witch burning(hundreds of thousands), genital mutilation(millions), sexual repression(females), poverty as virtue, terrorizing children with tales of eternal torture(Dante), Holy War(practically all of them), sex abuse of children(uncounted), violent opposition to every single scientific advance designed to benefit mankind(including the lightning rod), condoning slavery, wife-beating, genocide, war, suffering as virtue, avarice in gods name, theft in gods name, political power in gods name, rape in gods name, etc.

Atheists always complain that we blame atheism for what are really the crimes of communism and totalitarianism.. but those two things aren’t that easily disentangled from atheism. It’s shallow thinking to pretend atheism has nothing to do with communism or totalitarianism. A deeper thinker will realize that when a society and civilization embraces atheism and loses a belief in a transcendent God, it creates a vacuum. Something has to take the place of religion.. and contrary to what the idiot atheists and rationalists seem to think, scientific rationality and humanism isn’t necessarily what takes the place of religion. None of those things can soothe the human soul adequately.. or give any comfort to what is ultimately the tragic condition of human existence.. which is to suffer.. to live in a deeply unfair and unjust universe. If human beings aren’t promised some sort of salvation and Heaven in the after life, they will seek to create Utopia in the current life.. and in many cases, through violence. In the 20th century, political ideologies like Nazism and Communism attempted to take the place of religious faith and Christianity in the West but both failed to bring salvation to earth.

“and contrary to what the idiot atheists and rationalists seem to think, scientific rationality and humanism isn’t necessarily what takes the place of religion. ”

That’s because (no offense intended) most people are too stupid to understand anything “scientific”. It’s much easier to believe an all powerful fairy tale for the vast majority of the population. Expecting people to think critically is a massive mistake, especially when dealing with the “average” citizen. Rational thought simply does not come naturally to many.

Go on youtube or twitter and see exactly what kind of pseudo-intellectual shit-heads those ‘critical thinkers’ who admire Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris are.
Most atheists are dumbfucks, they’re not different from religion, other side of the same coin, same will. Replace God with science or super-duper intelligent aliens and Heaven with ‘The Singularity’ or “the progress of mankind”, and there you go, same intentions, coupled by shitty arguments and acting as if they are smart and calling themselves rational makes their crap real.

The only good atheists are existentialists, and they are some of the rarest ones. What everybody needs is more philosophy, we live in the most philosophically-retarded age where fucking pop-scientists are admired, the same kind of idiots who say shit like “philosophy is weak, we need science blah blah” even though that’s a philosophical statement and science is just a branch of philosophy.

Agreed. Personally, it doesn’t matter whether you’re religious or not. What matters is how you support your beliefs. Like you said, we have so many people that are completely devoid of critical thinking that it astounds me how anyone can get dressed in the morning. Science is the new religion nowadays yet scientists fudge the facts all the time to suit their agenda and anyone who calls them out is labeled a blasphemer and exiled from their ranks. If you can’t see the parallels I’m making here, then you’re part of the problem (not you personally, #facepalm; general statement).

What matters is this: Do you contribute to suffering or not? Everyone fudges facts, who better to know this than priests, rabbis, imams, pastors,ministers and the rest, They lie daily, yet, thanks to us evil athiests, they have their freedom to do so without being hunted down and burned. Like your buddies used to do back in the day before secularism began to take hold.

Amazing how you took my post as an insult to atheists and science. I merely stated that there are many scientists out there pushing agendas and discounting the actual findings that would disprove their own beliefs. Let’s not get into a mudslinging and ad hominem war.

And yet the more secular nations have fewer problems with: sex, drugs, sex, crime, child abuse, sex…. Nazism was based on religion, check your facts. Jesus lived and preached communist ideals. I dont speak for atheists, only for myself. Yes, we seek to better each other in this life, unlike many Christians I know who dont care because of their imaginary fallback. I’ve never met an unbeliever who needed soothing. We rationalists understand the nature of life, therefore we are better equipped to deal with it than underdeveloped man-children who need fairy tales to get through the day.

You are a shallow thinker. Many of the problems the manosphere talks about especially when it comes to women are the result of a nihilistic, morally bankrupt, hedonistic, feminist Western culture..that is the result of secularism and a loss of religious faith. I would be very careful about smugly proclaiming the superiority of Western european and Scandenavian countries like Sweden.. Secular, liberal and feminist cultures have proven to be demographic dead ends.. and can’t even reproduce themselves. I would also argue that the Western ideals you take for granted are built on a religious and Christian moral foundation that cannot be sustained without that foundation. No, the Western elightenment project will not collapse overnight without Christianity but already you see cracks in it. Without God, anything is justifiable. Nietzche understood this well.. the whole notion that human beings have dignity.. arises from the religious and christian belief in the human soul, and that all human life is sacred. Like a buffoon, you take jabs at Christianity without understanding how deeply and profoundly its values have transformed and influenced the west. Take a look at antiquity.. what sort of values were prized pre-christianity.. they had nothing to do with dignity of the individual, of every human being, rich or poor, of self-sacrifice. Christ’s message was revolutionary and its implications are profound. Remove Christianity and its values, and you’re back to paganism.. and the worship of might over right and where human life has no value.

“I’ve never met an unbeliever who needed soothing.”

Again, this is shallow thinking. Maybe you move about in elite, highly educated circles.. and those who are of a high socio-economic status and you seem to think the crowd you move in are somehow representative of everyone. It’s no coincidence that drug and alcohol use are rampant in secular societies.. and depression rates are at truly an epidemic rate in Western secular societies. People are in deep spiritual crisis.. atheism offers nothing. It may be the “truth”.. or rather, what you believe is the truth.. but it offers nothing to the poor, the downtrodden, the ugly, the “shit of the earth.” The human condition is tragic as Jordan Peterson describes in this excellent lecture:

Make no mistake about this: The human condition is tragic and human beings need soothing.. whether by spiritual means or through sex, drugs and alcohol. you take your pick which one is “better.”

“We rationalists understand the nature of life,”

Who’s we, Kimo-sabe ? Reason and self-restraint may be easy for a small percentage of human beings, but I would be very careful about assuming most people are capable of behaving morally, or of dealing with the true nature of reality and life and this universe, which is bleak, deeply unfair, chaotic and fickle. Most people cannot deal with the despair and existential angst and blows that life deals us. If you’re lucky enough to be spared the major blows that life can deal to human beings, consider yourself spared. Maybe you were born intelligent, attractive and everything in life went well for you. Good for you. This doesn’t apply to most people though. Don’t be so smug and look down on those who aren’t as fortunate as you, and weren’t dealt the same good hand in life as you have. They need more than “scientific rationality” and the emptiness of atheism to help them get through life.

Communism professes that it is a corrupt society which makes people wicked. Religion preaches its fundamentally corrupt people which produce wicked societies (original sin). The two ideas are both diametrically opposed and the cornerstone of faith and revolutionary leftism. Believing that mankind has innate flaws negates the proposition of building a heaven on earth. Much as religion has used violence to stomp out heretical thought, communists (and all radical leftists) use(d) violence to erase ideas heretical to their cannon.

If only there were a death penalty for trolls! But then who would we have to mock?

The “religion of Abraham” (good grief! What self-serving pains you take to sound smart!), does NOT believe in Original Sin. That honor goes to St Augustine and Catholicism, although most Protestant denominations also believe in it.

Christians found the world ugly and bad and have done more to make it beautiful and good than any other single force in earth.

What has atheism contributed to the good of the world? Nothing. Because it’s a negation

Original sin is Old Testament, Judaism and Islam have it too. But yes, the Catholics take especially perverse pleasure from the talking snake story. And if you consider the Catholic Church’s continuous history of genocide as “making the world beautiful and good” then fuck you. Genocide is what you can expect from a religion that worships an instrument of death by torture.

i had a very negative opinion of the catholic church until i met my devout catholic wife and started going to church with her. good people at her church, and the church gave me a great wife, so i have to love it, even though i can’t see converting and taking things like the nicean creed and de humanae vitae seriously.

i had a very negative opinion of the catholic church too, until i met my
devout catholic wife and started going to church with her. good people
at her church, and the church gave me a great wife, so i have to love
it, even though i can’t see converting and taking things like the nicean
creed and de humanae vitae seriously.

I can understand your position. I was raised Catholic, which means, as the comedian said, “when I grew up I quit!”

I have a great appreciation for the incredibly rich intellectual tradition, scholasticism and all, that the Catholic Church has and has preserved. My oldest brother is a religious (a monk) and provincial of his order. They build hospitals around the world. Practical Good Works. Nice.

Regarding the creeds, however. You could do worse than studying all the things written in support of the Gospel story, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus. The evidence has convinced many a skeptic. Many an atheist. God’s best.

Right, evidence. Good laugh there. Too bad for you the evidence shows that practically ALL atheists(your word) were believers, yes, believers who studied their coincidental faith and asked questions. Funny how that works, ask uncomfortable questions and you get wiggle words, silences, or the all-purpose God-miracle-mysterious ways answer. I have a great appreciation for intellectual traditions, too. I also see how the Church behaved when it had the power. Never again!

“Buddhism doesn’t profess original sin, only the religions of the wanna-be child murderer Abraham.”

Orthodox Christianity + Orthodox Judaism: Man has inherited a fallen nature that makes him inclined to sin which eventually leads to committing sin. Children who die before they commit sin or are old enough to be accountable for those sins, go to Heaven, which is why the children massacred by Herod are considered saints and martyrs in Orthodox Christianity (but not Heterodoxy).

Heterodoxy (Roman Catholicism and most of her Protestant daughters): Man inherits the very sin of Adam. Every baby is born guilty and damned even though they have committed no personal sins yet. The doctrine of “original sin” leads to errors about free will, predestination, grace (which Heterodoxy only sees as legal forgiveness, rather than being a lifelong process of interacting with the Divine Energies of God), etc.

“Islam: The sons of Ishmael”
You know, I’ve pondered that passage in the Bible many times and it always seems to point at Islam as Ishmael’s offspring. Are there any other texts/books that study this idea?

Well, Communism is pretty much Christanity without all the supernatural aspect. Marx and the revolutionary leaders are the prophets and the dictators are God. They both have universal appeal, preach about the struggle between good and evil, persecute those that oppose them, promise their followers paradise, etc.

To answer your question, Atheists tend to be people who reject the notion of surrendering to fate or some power above and believe that humans themselves have the capacity to change the world for the better, which is what socialism and communism is intended to do. They believe that humans can become better unlike Christians who simply believe that there are just good people and bad people, hard working or lazy people, etc. It’s about the percieved locus of control.

That said, as an atheist, I will continue to reject this proposal that God and religious belief need to exist because people would be lost without them. I cannot permit to deceive myself just for the supposed benefits.

And as a believer I agree with your last sentiment. Which is why I object to the entire premise of this article. Religion (but which one are we talking about?) may or may not be good for society. But to the degree it is either it is because it is BELIEVED to be true

No, communism is based on collective guilt and collective redemption (putting it into religious framework for discussion). Christianity is based on individual guilt and individual redemption. This is a major, major difference.

The leader principle, submission to authority, blind faith in authority, double-think, these are all the hallmarks of monotheism. It sets those poor folks up for whatever tinpot dictator comes along and claims divine right. Guys like Hitler

When man believes in God he believes in absolutes and he believes in an orderly arrangement which has been designed for the world and for us. This orderly arrangement we can see and observe with our very own eyes.

When a man does not believe in God or an ultimate authority to which he is subject to, he attempts to create his own order out of things from his subjective thoughts, experiences and limited perspective.

Now we can look back historically in visceral shock at this short sightedness, this callous disregard for all things outside of himself and the wake of millions upon millions of dead corpses rotting amidst the ashes of man’s foolish and brutally dangerous idealism.

And yet you benefit from the efforts of thousands to improve life in the here and now in the face of massive religious persecution.
You create your God out of your subjective thoughts, experiences and limited perspective.I create my reality the same way. The difference is I am aware of my limitations, while you believe your self imposed God makes your limitations virtuous. The world you live in now is the one made by rational people, not by irrational religion lovers. At least have the grace to acknowledge it.

A lot of assumptions here. First that rational thinking and religion are mutually exclusive.

First off religious debate, especially surrounding intellectual questions regarding Christianity has probably spawned the bulk of all recorded rational analysis in the past 2k years or so.

Any “rational” person could easily read the comments here and see a fountain of rational discourse from religious people but I won’t expect that much from you.

Your subjective reasoning makes my claim no less valid than yours. In fact you aren’t really making any solid claims you are just trying to sound more intelligent and end up sounding like an arrogant dunce incapable of introspection.

People speak of atheism as if it is an alternative religion. It is not. You simply believe in God or you do not. If you follow a rational chain of logic then the existence of God must be rejected. This is completely aside from your political beliefs.

It is also reasonable to suggest the association of Christianity with monarchy: God as the sole ruler of the Kingdom of Heaven, the Pope as the Head of the Church, the King as the sole ruler of the Kingdom on Earth, and so on.

Rational chain of logic does not lead to the rejection of the existence of God (not that such an epistemology wasn’t wrecked many times.
I’m thinking of a number between 1 and 10^50000
Your chance of guessing that number is the same chance as life originating from non-life. That is just how extremely fine-tuned the universe is.
Atheists do not have any monopoly on rationality or logic. The only smart atheists are existentialists and absurdists, all other atheists are mediocre or even worse thinkers.

Yeah, I figure that Catholic School must suck; I am sure I would hate it, too. I pretty much despise the church. You come in there and they tell you how pathetic and miserable you are. And that sex is bad and what not. No, thanks.

Figures that such a fucking buerocratic institution – never think for yourself, always read the oh so holy scripture – would much more likely achieve to alienate everybody from god than to connect with him.

Its not that I despise the Catholic Church. Most of them were quite nice. Much nicer than American Christians. It’s just that having spent years studying Christianity and science, I simply came to the conclusion that the existence of God must be rejected.

Can you elaborate on that line of thought you followed that led you to the belief that the existence of God must be rejected? I suggest that this was due to some inherent Christian mysticism and a misrepresentation of what to expect from god. For instance, I do not believe that god prescribes any kind of morals. Neither do I believe in an afterlife. Nor do I believe that god solves your problems – apart from giving you some love and confidence.

There was some research done where brainscans of atheists and normal meditating people were compared with praying people who believed in god. The praying people had active regions that were inactive in others. That is not quite a proof, but it is at least motivation to dig deeper.

Reminds me of the girl you told me about. That has you running after her helplessly. I used to feel that way, too. Yet it does not seem quite right, does it? Something is fishy about it! Proposal: Acknowledge the wish to submit and separate it from women. Who is left? Other men. But can they satisfy the desire for a flawless guide? If not, who / what can?

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate
all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity,
and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction,
have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will
open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall
either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of
a new dark age.

– H. P. Lovecraft

This is why people “need” religion. It provides a comfort from the harsh cold truth of reality.

Reality is harsh and cold, but not exclusively. God, for me, is nothing to distract you from that. More like the power to embrace it. Or simply one aspect of reality. But yeah, there is a difference between god and ideology / utopia.

So Evolution created a creature that cannot survive reality without lies? How does that happen? The human mind lies to itself about the true nature of reality, fabricating the existence of God because it cannot accept the truth of its pointless existence. Why not? Why would the mind evolve such a dyshygienic… maladaption? If you are right and man does not really “need” God,” why did nature evolve Him? And if nature evolved the concept of God because man NEEDS to believe, aren’t you and your fellow atheists an evolutionary dead end?

Instead, show me one creature whose survival is enhanced by deceiving ITSELF (not its enemies), one lie that increases man’s survival chances. It is the psychotic and the neurotic that lie to themselves. In fact, lying to oneself is he sine qua non of mental illness.

Yet fMRI scans have proven that belief in God is NOT a malfunction if the brain, but a higher order of thought. Check out the book, “The Spiritual Brain”.

My questions are actually rhetorical. Like Jeopardy. My answers are in the form of questions but they are answers nonetheless.

The fact of the matter is, you are in a logical bind. You have no explanation for why the mind creates God. Why the mind needs God.if Evolution is true, that is.

But that is only one question about the mind evolutionists can’t answer. How about this one:

If finite matter is all there is, how is it possible for a finite mind to create infinite concepts? How is it possible for a mind limited to three dimensions to imagine multiple dimensions?

On how about this one:

If materialism is true and everything comes down to a law of endless concatenation, how is the mind capable of CHOOSING between different answers? If determinism is true, it can’t be true. Both materialism and determinism are self-contradictory; therefore, they cannot be true.

Atheism is a void. A nothing. A black hole from which nothing good can emerge. It is the void of oblivion.

Assumens propter argumentum is not begging the question. It has been your assertion that man created God. For the sake of answering your own begging of the question I assumed that baseless assertion was true and then proceeded to show that, if true, it would lead to a self-contradictory conclusion; therefore it could not be true. This was a conclusion you could not refute and so you are attempting to distract the argument with this Red Herring.

I think you need to pay attention. I have not asserted anything. I am arguing against the existence of God. If man had created God then that would mean that God exists. This I reject because the proposition that God exists is based on faith which is entirely irrational and unprovable. This makes it meaningless.

I think we should consider this matter closed as you are clearly becoming emotional (which is to be expected when the faithful find their beliefs slammed up against the cold hard wall of logic).

You do realize, don’t you, that everyone reading this knows you were unable to intelligently respond to the logical arguments I made? You do know that everyone reading this can see you had nothing to offer in response, don’t you? You do know that everyone reading this recognizes that you FAILED to make your case for atheism, don’t you?

“Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
And another one gone, and another one gone
Another one bites the dust
Hey, I’m gonna get you too
Another one bites the dust”

Sir you have stated: “If you follow a rational chain of logic then the existence of God must be rejected”.
May I ask what is this rational chain of logic? Please state it so I can know whether or not I should stop believing in God.
Thanks

An irrational man would respond as you have done. But you simply cannot reject the Scientific Method, assuming you know what it is. Plug your hypothesis (Null Hypothesis = There is a God) into this simple formula and see what comes out.

Interesting that atheism leads to socialism and communism even as Christianity doesn’t often lead to theocracy. Is that a good distinction? Christians prefer to convert based on reason and the heart. Atheists insist on the power of the state.

I generally don’t like being told what to do so I tend to shy away against religion.
But it’s clear that religion is good for communities as a way to provide meaning and a general uniting philosophy. Whether you believe in God or not you have to wrestle with the fact that you’re going to die… And this amongst a few others things unites us all.
Sacrifice and virtue can by very meaningful, even without religion, but not everyone has the time or means to debate the eternal philosophical questions. For many people religion fills that gap and gives them a general format with which to live.

Atheists don’t seem to understand/respect this. And most of the self-proclaimed atheists that I’ve met (university professors, drugs addicts, etc.) are liberals… The kind of liberals that like telling other people what to do…

I can’t tell you that I’m a good libertarian, but of all the political viewpoints that I’ve encountered, it seems to make the most sense.

In the hard physical sciences (physics, mathematics), those that believe in a personal god are few and far between. I remember some interview with physicist Steven Weinberg, who shared the 1979 Nobel prize in physics with Abdus Salam, a muslim, relating how Salam was completely torn between the things he knew and discovered (regarding the physical reality of nature) and his muslim faith. Those things appeared simply irreconcilable.

Even though I can respect religious people, I could never understand this one girl from my previous research department who believed in Jesus. I’m talking like… visiting Bethlehem to give props to Jesus kind of thing… Believed the Bible’s teachings literally.

It was completely divorced from her hard-working methodical approach she had when doing science. Didn’t seem to bother her that in one aspect of life she required evidence, and in the other not so much.

The contradiction is too difficult for me to reconcile so I’ve basically said fuck it… Maybe she’s got the right idea though.

Our entire understanding of our own existence and universe is based on arbitrary man-made conjecture, even our language can only give partial meaning to our notions.
Our minds process, yes, and processes that can be replicated have sustainability, and that might be one way of prioritizing/valuing something as relevant or “factual,” but there is still a lot taken on faith within that process.
I believe the stars are suns like our own, but can’t prove it. I believe gravity is force placed on an object and not some intangible field, but I can’t definitively prove it.
I may not be saying it how I mean, but as humans our perception and comprehension are limited and nothing reliant upon something imperfect can ever be perfect, though it can easily be acceptable.

Exactly. Even science requires a degree of faith.
As we’ve talked about before, people took traditional Darwinism for granted as absolute truth. People shape their morality and existential perspective on this scientific idea. But now we’re realizing evolution is a little more complex than we thought. Lamarckism has a grain of truth.
Scientists base their lives on imperfect models just as much as the next person.

I’ve never spent time in Asia, but I think philosophy could serve the same societal needs as religion. The ancient Greeks used philosophy to provide a roadmap for living. And Confucianism in China today seems to do the same.

Religion is but one way of addressing important moral questions; the most important thing is that they are addressed.

Correct me if I’m wrong but I think all of these philosophies, despite how “reasonable” or supernatural their content, require a leap of faith.

Confucianism for example assumes an inherent hierarchy to nature. One’s purpose is to fulfill their natural (and respected) role in the greater scheme of things. But if all there was was to fill this role and afterwards you blink out of existence, why bother??? Why not just pursue pleasure???

I’m arguing that these notion of “natural” and “good” require a leap of faith because people need to address their mortality, which is ultimately beyond their comprehension.

Even Buddhists, who talk about how they can transcend the suffering of this material world believe in reincarnation. If they didn’t believe in reincarnation, would they spend all that time meditating??? Why do they believe in reincarnation at all??? It should be noted that, as I understand it, the teachings of the original Buddha don’t even bother talking about the afterlife at all. This issue was intentionally ignored.

I’m not saying that these issues can’t be answered with a secular philosophical approach. I’m saying these issues can’t be answered completely with a secular philosophical approach.

that’s a nice, idea but i can’t think of an example of it ever working. marxism is a philosophy, and obviously that didn’t go well. most of us on ROK are thinking men, but i don’t think most people are to the extent that a philosophy with no supernatural elements would really grab them. just my two cents.

True. The world is a chaotic place and a belief system helps make order out of chaos.
Everything might actually be relative and there might actually be no absolutes, but it’s not in a man’s nature to live like that.
Our minds are pretty small and if we had no system of beliefs we would be pondering everything until we died.
There’s a reason great men in history usually had some pretty strong beliefs.
So yeah, I agree.

Well then you havent met me; not a professor, drug addict, or an etc. Why bring politics into a social argument? It just mucks everything up. Liberal, libertarian, conservative, classical liberal, socialist, what do these have to do with anything? They’re just opinions.
If we can’t deal with each other rationally, how can we ever deal with each other on the basis of irrational beliefs?

Modern Jews don’t take the Bible as accurate history. However, Orthodox Jews point to the fact that all rabbis can trace their intellectual lineage all the way back to Moses as proof that their tradition is accurate history at least as far as receiving the law on Mt. Sinai is concerned.

This is similar to the CatholicChurch’s claim to being the one true church because of the supposed unbroken chain of apostolic succession.

As far as I know, Islam makes no such historical claims but neither does it make any new revelations about God, His nature or purpose for mankind. Islam is actually merely a derivative of Christianity and Judaism.

Christianity takes the truth claims of the Bible and of Jesus very, very seriously. “If in this life we only have hope in Christ (and we will not be raised from the dead) we are of all men MOST MISERABLE.”

so the mostly-spoken word lineage is the evidence verifying Christianity to skeptics?

Again, as a child, even I knew that spoken communication was the absolute worst way to pass along information. I figured that was the point of the game “Telephone.” The spoken message was only as good as its receiver.

That is because you are conflating a childish game with a serious societal pursuit and even profession. The passing down of oral tradition was a serious business in the ancient world. Check out “Flow – The Psychology of Optimal Experience”, for a fascinating description of this process in various cultures (at least I hope my reference is as I remember it!). In the past it was not unusual for people to memorize entire epics stretching thousands of-now pages. The Illiad the Odyssey. The Vedas, Upanishads. The Icelandic epics (their name escapes me at the moment). All of them were remembered word for word, verified during public recitals, for hundreds of years before they were written down. This wasn’t a game to these people. It was their identity we can’t even conceive today of such dedication.

The saying is, “When books were few, memories were many.” Prior to writing people were not ignorant. The had other skills necessarily developed over many years. We can’t conceive of them because w’vee lost them because we don’t need them anymore. Look how the Internet is changing our brains. Will we even recognize our descendants 200 years from now?

I’m not saying oratory history isn’t a serious profession. But the fact that it was oral meant there were more opportunities than other forms of communication that what was passed down definitely was inflated, changed, made to fit the sociopolitical narrative that was being pushed at the time.

I truly wish we could get into textual criticism and all more fully here, but it’s just not possible. The fact is the Biblical texts have been subjected to more scrutiny and study and skeptical analysis than any other writing in history. If there were s smoking gun or a silver bullet truly destroying the claim that they were NOT handed down accurately (interpretations notwithstanding), it would be published on every MSM outlet every day for a year and then once a year thereafter like an anti-Christmas holiday forever. Just as they would do if the tomb of Jesus were ever found with a body in it.

If you would convert to Christianity upon the discovery of Jesus’ body, it would NOT be Christianity you would be converting to! LOL!

Christianity claims, above all other claims, that Jesus Christ died on a cross and that he physically rose from the dead. Had the Pharisees or the Romans wanted to stop the apostles in their tracks all they had to do was produce his body. They didn’t because they couldn’t.

Well, the apostles must have stolen it! With a Roman Guard on the tomb? Not likely.

But if they did, then you have to deal with the fact that they died for a lie they themselves fabricated. Why? To what end?

To control the masses, as our article author, Quentin claims? To give them a story they already want to believe? But the disciples weren’t the religious leaders. They WERE the hoi polloi. The unwashed masses. And they died for a story they didn’t believe?

When challenged on the resurrection, the Apostle Paul gave a very unusual answer. He said, “Look, over 500 people saw him after his resurrection. If you don’t believe me, go talk to them.”

He also said, “If Christ is not risen from the dead then your faith is worthless and your hope futile and we are of all men most to be pitied.”

This is what I mean when I speak of believing the truth claims of religion. Not myths. Not parables or ancient stories. But the central miracle claimed by Christinity. What C.S. Lewis called, The Grand Miracle.”

Jesus Christ physically rose from the dead and is alive forever. And that fact changes everything.

[Said with a Yiddish accent] “And why should it happen more than once? Or to anyone else? And why should you be so lucky, Mr. Special man, to be there when it happens? And who says it won’t happen again? Just not yet?”

This is where the study of evidence comes in. Countless men in the past two millenia have become believers in the resurrection because they studied the question. Lew Wallace was one of the premier jurist of his day and an expert on the Rules of Evidence. He spend 20 years investigating the resurrection of Christ and wrote the book, “Ben Hur” as a result. The same with Simon Greenleaf, minus the best selling book!

My favorite, C.S. Lewis also made a study of the question and became perhaps the best defender of the resurrection in the past hundred years. “Even though,” he said, “I was the most reluctant convert in all of England.”

Or one of my favorite Lewis quotes: “I did not believe God existed. And I was angry at Him for not existing. I was equally angry at Him for having created a world.”

Doesn’t make sense does it? Neither does atheism.

I forget who said it, “The primary question of science is not “What exists”, But “Why does anything exist at all?” Or something like that. Can’t look it up right now.

The universe is a mystery that we can “see through a glass darkly.” Why does it exist and why can we comprehend it? To propose God as an answer is not “arguments from ignorance” but instead inspires the most profound questioning and searching the human mind is capable of.

The atheist’s answer is too simple. “No reason. No point. No big deal.” And always said with the tone of the petulant child who doesn’t want to do his homework,

It happened to Superman, another story of an extra-terrestrial being sent to Earth to save man.

I hope you see my pattern here. All of your references to other great minds (C.S. Lewis fan myself) who found it within themselves and their own studies to come to grips with religion paint an intellectually dense picture. But the difference between you and the individuals you tout is that they are content with finding their own truth, while you are more content with arguing down those that don’t share your view.

Not once in my arguments did I say something amounting to “religion is a sham, and anyone who believes in it must be intellectually inferior.” Even if are correct, and there is just one deity and it is God/Jesus, don’t you see how the attitude you’re carrying puts people off? and you’re a very mild iteration of this attitude. Imagine the loudest of your kind and how off-putting that is to those who either don’t share your belief or, like me, are under the thought of “live and let live.”

If you practice religion, fine. Do what you do. But if I choose not to, due to reasons of my own, then nothing is exactly what I choose to follow. Your repeated arguments about atheism stemming from ignorance are also rendered ineffective by traveling to the Bible Belt and asking the average Christian why they believe what they believe. What are the chances they’ve done as much soul-searching and research as you or I have to come to our conclusions? I’d bet they are just as, if not more, ignorant than you claim the “average” atheist to be.

“Even if are correct, and there is just one deity and it is God/Jesus, don’t you see how the attitude you’re carrying puts people off? and you’re a very mild iteration of this attitude. Imagine the loudest of your kind and how off-putting that is to those who either don’t share your belief or, like me, are under the thought of “live and let live.”

You’re trying to sidestep the discussion by first retreating, feigning injury, and then attacking my personality? You know you can’t maintain your agnosticism honestly so you try to shame me for not being a better Christian witness? F**k you and the hypocrisy you rode in on!. This isn’t church or a retreat or a coffee shop and you aren’t a friend who’s soul I’m trying to save. This is a dialectical duel. An intellectual MMA match and you are free to TAPOUT at any time. Just don’t play the pussy.

For too many years I fell for that kind of crap! I allowed people to SCOLD ME for being at the top of my game. Mastering all the facts. Knowing all the argument and objections. I have NEVER lost a debate with an atheist OR agnostic but whenever I had them on the ropes they’d all step back and feign an emotional injury like you’re doing now! And now you’re trying to shame me for “picking on the GIRL!” And after she slapped me first!

Grow some balls and make a fuckng decision. You have enough evidence. You’re smart enough to decide. So decide. Stop sitting on the fence playing the wounded, wondering child.

Goku was also an alien that came to earth to protect mankind. Being an anime fan, I should like Jesus.

You didn’t win a debate. I’m not shifted in aghast I believe, because at the end of it all, I’m still “live and let live.” keep your fairy tales, bud. If you need imaginary characters to keep you on the straight and narrow, by all means, keep at it. I’d rather know that I can keep myself in line without the help of my imaginary magical friends.

Whether you agree with the statement or not, that is the atheist position on the existence of the universe. No Reason. No Point. No Big Deal.
We cannot help but speak in generalities here. I can only type so fast with two thumbs! Now if I was on my full sized keyboard, well, them, 80 WPM!

see, i go the other route and say that i see evidence that “something is there” in christianity by comparing my christian wife to the supposedly liberated and strong independent western women i used to date before i met her, who were actually emotionally broken, promiscuous and miserable. the fact that uncorrupted christianity produces superior wives and mothers suggests to me that it is true, not that the bitter atheists will ever concede that.

Because they privilege the oral over the written torah, deferring to the former over the latter if necessary – is that correct? The Talmud etc (and potentially the Kabbalah for some) fleshes out, interprets / qualifies the meanings of the tanakh – this is the basis for christian / (anti-semitic) claims that judaism isn’t “biblical” or ‘nullifies’ the old testament somehow I think

“However, Orthodox Jews point to the fact that all rabbis can trace their intellectual lineage all the way back to Moses as proof that their tradition is accurate history at least as far as receiving the law on Mt. Sinai is concerned.”

again though, this is from the oral torah I think isn’t it. It depends on a particular lineage involving the pharisaic elders and the prophets? (please correct me as appropriate if you know the answer)

The zombie carpenter was his own father and had to have Romans torture him to death so he could forgive everyone for our ancestor eating his magical fruit because of a talking snake. What part isn’t reasonable.

Yes. And thank you for your contribution to the conversation. You sound like a bored teenager, depressed because the grown ups are talking about things you don’t understand. “Mom! Can I go out and play now?” “Of course. No one’s making you stay inside with the grown ups! Go outside and play! Have fun. And leave us alone so we can talk,”

Tom, you gotta be my favorite commenter on this article. If you lived near me I would love to have a conversation over a cup of coffee. Makes me want to open up my Bible app and start listening to some verses.

I haven’t practiced since I studied Shin Ye Kung Fu in Japan. Not as impressive as it sounds. It hurt like a MF!
Jui Jitsu in high school.

But my children were with an amazing instructor for five years and attended class 4-6 days a week! Guess what it cost me? $88 a month! She was awesome! Five time world champion – all knock outs! One she put girl in the hospital.

Haha! I originally started with TKD. Have been studying that for 16 years this month. Since about April of this year I have also taken up Jeet Kun Do, Filipino Kali, and Aikido. It’s a blast learning new styles.
Hoping to get back into the competitive circuit soon, not so much as an athlete but more as a trainer/coach. Our school is looking into the possibility of starting a competitive team so I’ve been looking to spearhead that project. 🙂

I do but I’m sitting here getting ready to drive to SoCal. SD. Moms is going in for a minor surgery to pervent a stroke (let’s hope). Got a long drive ahead but I’ll be pondering your request. We live in fantastic times for book lovers, aye?

What you said about modern day atheists’ views on religion reminds me of a recent interview with Stephen Colbert on his faith. He was making the distinction between joy and flippancy. Joy, he said, brings people closer to God because it usually happens when one is around loved ones, friends, and generally good folks.

On the other hand, flippancy pulls one further from God and makes the heart colder since it is the attitude that a joke has been made without actually having put out the intellectual sweat to make a joke. Making jokes can come from a place of joy but flippancy comes from a place of contempt.

I can’t even have an honest talk with many people around my age about faith because they automatically treat it as ridiculous and worthy of contempt without having asked the hard questions.

You seem like a smart dude; hope to see more of your comments around these parts.

Many thanks. And are you sure that was Colbert? If it was, I got it from Screwtape_ I believe! You know him? The senior Devil training the junior his nephew? His comment was pure Lewis!

Thanks for the upvotes. I’m hoping to find my voice and start doing more regular postings. I consider myself sort if the UNpastor of the internet. It seems the only place people are going with their real life issues.

But the Trolls are just everywhere! LOL! But even Trolls need love. You just have to housebreak the first. Teach them not to shit on the comments! LOL!

Yeah, it was indeed Colbert quoting Lewis. When I read that I found the reason for my contempt of “those” kinds of millennials and hipsters. I really need to read more of Lewis’ work; he is one sharp dude.

Shame that the ROK community can’t create some kind of “Manclave,” like Roosh’s tour but on a bigger scale. Also props on bringing an intellectual mindset to discussing religion. Someone’s gotta do it and I’m tired of seeing “reddit atheists” who think they’re smart because they watched a few amazing atheist videos on youtube.

Mike Cernovich of D&P took “reddit atheists” to town when he posed the question: Look at these people. Are they happy, fulfilled, and successful in their lives? Are they the kind of people who you want to aspire to be like?

Lewis is very interesting. A hundred years and another world! My favorite quote is when B.Grahams magazine asked him the quintessential Ameri-Christian question: Which religion is most able to make its followers happy? Or something very like that.

Lewis replied: I think while it lasts, the religion of worshipping onesself is best. Ha!

He then said: But I didn’t become a Christian to be happy. I always knew a bottle of port could do that! I became a Christian because I was convinced Christianity was true.

Good work by Mike Cernovich. Atheism is a Nothing. A Void. As a philosophy it answers nothing. Inspires nothing. Motivates nothing. Creates nothing. Think about that.

Not that it doesn’t inspire, etc. It CAN’T. Who ever wrote an epic to atheism? A symphony? A cantada even.

And all novels written from a nihilistic viewpoint are ALWAYS tragedies.

People do not like to talk about “god” anymore because christians do not want to talk, they want to argue and act like jerks when someone disagrees with their pet belief.

Example, gay marriage.
Recently I attempted to discuss the issue here. I used the law and the scripture to back up my points.

My attempt at peaceful discussion and honest debate was to be verbally attacked by the christian jackals who had nothing to refute my points but an emotional response, personal attacks, name calling, sending me to hell etc.
Instead of factually proving me wrong, all they could do is yap and whine from a safe distance.

I have friends in the ministry who do the same, and wonder why i seldom talk to them any more.

I am I 100% right ? probably not.
But, I have spent the last two years reading about this and studying the issue.
I have studied the bible, the law, the constitution, case law, legal opinions, etc. I have both sides to show me facts to pack their opinion, I have studied the ACLU’s information, and that of christian commentators as well.

I used the information I gathered to form an opinion that I think is correct, and I am willing to peacefully discuss it.
The problem is finding someone who is willing to be peaceful.

Who knows ?, the other people might have some facts I missed, and I can learn something from them.

Children who can’t understand books written for grown ups shouldn’t waste everyone’s time pretending they’ve read them, that they understand them, and that they are capable of talking about them intelligently.

to be fair, the part about him being his own father got codified hundreds of years after christ’s death in the council of nicea, called and heavily influenced by a bloodthirsty pagan emperor. not necessary to believe that particular part to be a good christian, in my opinion.

Converting on the basis of reason is encouraged in the Bible. Diligent study and reasoned thought is the foundation of Christianity:

Acts 17:11New American Standard Bible (NASB)
11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, [a]for they received the word with [b]great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

1 Thessalonians 5New American Standard Bible (NASB)
21 But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;

2 Peter 3New American Standard Bible (NASB)

14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, 15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things,in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness, 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Thanks for painting with the broad brush of generality. Ahem, Christianity, and all religions, are a theocracy. Try to find one of those old time religions that didnt start out with ultimate authority over all. Judiasm, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, heck even Mormons.

The only reason christianity does not lead to theocracy is that secular governments finally got it under control.
Theists insist on the power of the church.

The first amendment separates church and state for a very good reason.
Religious people cannot be trusted with political power, look a what a mess the religious reich has made of the republican party, look at Kentucky, look at Iran.

They get rid of God with the promise of a progressive world where cruelty and war don’t happen.
They worship the state in place of God with cruelty and war being the result. Governments have slaughtered more non-combatants, even outside of war through persecution and genocide, than the church could ever aspire to.
This is why aliens won’t land here. If we don’t fuck them or eat them we’ll install our tyranny over them.

Even if I were devoid of faith entirely, it would give me the creeping heebie jeebies to trust a system crafted by men to give me “heaven on earth”. One need not look at more than, oh, say the first twenty billion examples of human individuals to deduce that there are some fucked up control freaks out there, in almost every single person, with the measure of control lust stopped only by how much power the person has obtained in life.

“Hey, kid, I’ma take care of ya’, see? I’m gonna give you a rabbit in every pot, see? Just sign right here, and put on this uniform, alright? No, really….Trust Me ™”.

Oh there’s nothing creepier than these socialism fanatics who act like their plans never lead to starvation and totalitarianism. Their disconnect from that while acting they are all for the children is probably the one of the few things in this world that scares me. This is why I believe that these people are cultists and this is a death cult.

The contradiction I don’t get in all these progressive liberals is that they trust the institution of government to regulate peoples’ lives and make everything nice. We’re talking about the same government that has violated peoples’ privacy in every way imaginable, ran guns across the Mexican border and lost track of them, funded murderous guerrillas, and has waged the very wars the liberals are opposed to.

In sacrifice of losing logic and brains, in the end-Science?
No, leftist has no place in the future. same to be said for Christianity. because of your play-book people are afraid of hands scanners. and the number 666. it’s pathetic.

Religion and science can and do co-exist.
Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian Catholic priest, proposed the expansion of the universe and the theory of the cosmic egg.
Gregor Mendel, an Augustinian friar, the founder of modern genetics.
More recently Francis Collins, an evangelical Christian, led the Human Genome Project and also head of the National Institutes of Health.
Just because you believe doesn’t make you dumb, and just because you reject faith doesn’t make you smart.
At the end of the day, everyone has their reasons for both and intelligence is not the defining factor in that decision.

Most of these people started with science by abandoning Christian dogma temporally. They don’t believe inthe garden of Eden. or Joseph or Jesus because they’re scientist of reason and there no reason to think that these characters or location exist.

Not disagreeing per se, yet what you are describing is common in herd-mentality (group-think) and not particularly exclusionary. Atheists can easily fall into the same patterns. No one is immune really. Hell, even people who claim “superior” intellect can easily become very totalitarian in practice.

“there are some fucked up control freaks out there, in almost every single person”

We need stellar independance in the future, or we’ll end up with high-tech hell on earth communism, technology will make it too easy for control freaks to eventually perfect mind-control techniques unfortunately, the countdown HAS begun

Just take a dozen or so AI bots with you for company on your ship and you have no need to be dependant on some parasite society that sees it’s participants like a lion sees a juicy piece of meat, True freedom in my opinion

The scientific revolution inchoate around the 1500’s, but it truly kicked off after the industrial revolution.
Thanks to religious maddens which spawn a pseudo-secular religion: feminism or leftistism by using Christianity control techniques of the masses has held back science back over a thousand years*. Luckily, people are abandon petty things for the pursuit of conceptual reality.

“pseudo-secular religion: feminism or leftistism by Christianity control of the masses has held back science back over a thousand years*. Luckily, people are abandon petty things for the pursuit of conceptual reality.

“*the burning of library of Alexandria for example.”

Pseudo-scholar religion eh? Pursuit of conceptual reality?

Riddle me this, was Julius Caesar a pagan or was he somehow a Christian in the year 48 BC?

Plutarch, Life of Caesar:

When the enemy endeavored to cut off his communication by sea, he was forced to divert that danger by setting fire to his own ships, which, after burning the docks, thence spread on and destroyed the great library.

Nice try. Christians burned the library in 391 C.E. by Archbishop Theophilus. Not *43 B.C.E.
if you searched at the link you would’ve known that.
So, Julius Caesar wasn’t a pagan or a Christian. He was a Great ape like us. Except he was ahead of the curve.

The people who attempt to erase our past by changing before Christ and Anno Domini to your common era crap are the same ones who are flooding our nations with foreigners in an attempt to erase our future. Though I understand that there will always be followers who are easily programmed.

Why do all discussions with Leftists now-a-days end with what used to be the area of hardened Christians a Jewish obsession. I’ve seen it 100 times. This is Soviet stuff, leftism equals a hate obsession with a tiny ancient people. You are the superstitious one.

The arch of titus brainwashed antisemite jacka*ss the book called the ANTIQUITIES of the Jews jacka*ss, menorah carvings in southern Italy antisemite, The dead sea scrolls were carbon dated, Silver scrolls with the same prayers said today in it, 2600 years old.Prove the existence of any minor ancient people. You are so stupid it is scary.

Wake up? To what? You need to wake up, you’re dumb, and likely evil, the antisemitic obsession is barking up the wrong alley. If I distrusted any ancient findings it would be from the Romans, Arabs and Greeks, not the People they teach evil babies like you to be obsessed with. Well, before I would distrust the Jews, they got nothing for it, all the power and censorship belongs to the Romans and Greeks and the facts on the ground bear that out.

That obsession is how they control YOU “sheeple”. It’s their way of destroying the Jews and stealing everything they had at the same time. I promise YOU “sheeple” will know more about one Jewish banking family than 1000 more powerful antisemitic ones, because it is you who have been fooled by the liars.

Alright, first of all. I don’t care if you call me anti-semitic and if anyone reading this conversation you shouldn’t care as well.

Now Cristinascar, are you aware that the menorah carvings and antiquities of the Jews was created in around 100 A.D.
As for Flavius Josephus’s works he borrowed a lot of legend across the ancient world. The deity which was stolen from the early Mesopotamians we know this from the garden/flood tale. Joseph was based off of demi-god of the Egyptians. Moses beginnings was formed through the life of Sargon of Akkad. The plagues were copied by the Ipuwer papyrus. We could go on and on.
Christians later used Josephus books to create the bible, we know this because they change what Flavius said about Jesus, so, obviously he had in influence for Christians.

Again ‘Jews’ didn’t exist before 1 B.C.E.and certainly not at 1000, 800, or even 60 B.C.E. There’s just no prove for them.

Bill, please don’t give yourself any reason to question Atheism. we need logical people in this world.

There no proof that He existed, it most likely propaganda to justify to exterminate people who Romans assume are rebels against Caesar.
So, who were ‘Jews’? Probability a mix of Egyptians, Iranians and rogue Europeans. Fewer still were denomination followers of the epistle of Clement, the Didache and formed the ‘law’ after the Hammurabi’s Code.

Who really knows what jesus really said or did, all of the witnesses are long dead.
The “books” were chosen by a religious organization with a political agenda, I do not see how they can be considered trustworthy.

It’s a fact that the bible was made in 397 C.E. but it diverge from a folks tale called The First epistle of Clement in 96 C.E. later the populace became rather picky and started ‘denominations’ Judaism is one of them.
Unfortunately, too many fuckas become zealous for their delusions that they must forge inventions to make the church happy like the Sumerian King List or Jacob’s well or plagues of exodus. Christians just hate reality, period.

The research system all around the world is a massive joke. You can’t form your own scientific opinion without getting ridiculed and sabotaged by everybody who’s swimming with the mainstream believe.

Same goes for university education. The motto there is: “Shut up and blindly believe what we tell you to and never ever use your own brain or logic, you rebellious prick.”
That’s why more women finish university. They, instinctively, love being ordered around.

It’s basically the exact same thing as it was back in the days when church suppressed everything. These days government is the big bad oppressor of science. They say what’s right and what’s wrong.

The fundamental purpose of JudeoChristian religion is to put a person’s natural animalistic tendencies in check for the benefit of everyone outside his perspective, through a promotion of Godly principles.
That and saving one from damnation through Jesus, of course.

The fundamental purpose of atheism is to promote a belief in a denial of something greater than the self for the benefit of that person’s desires and drives, no matter how perverse. iI supplants the belief in a supernatural God with the belief that the person is god, essentially.

Which one of these two is more likely to benefit society and which one has caused more woe to society?
Would you wager to guess?

I’m not extremely religious (eg. creationism), but I do have a Catholic background and am not atheist, so I identify as an agnostic theist (I believe in god and spirituality, but I still believe in evolution).
I’ve noticed families with some aspect of spirituality tend to be more functional than atheists, as I suppose they just don’t worry about their actions and say/ do things someone normally wouldn’t. I think a god most likely exists, and I do tend to see Jesus as having a way of communicating with him/ it.
Oh, and as a white person, I can thank Christianity for not being conquered by Asians. See, Christianity (more specifically the Catholic church) brought all the different factions of Europe together in some way, as occasional large wars were better than many smaller tribal battles in the name of Odin or some other pagan god/ gods. If Europe were left alone by the Abrahamic religions, it would be a similar state to the many tribes of Africa and the Americas.

Yes. Look there. Not at the founding of this country. Not at the Constitution and the declaration of Independence. Not at the Federalist papers. Not at the abolitionist movement. Not the civil rights movement. Etc , etc., etc.

BS ! the lack of basic high school level civics education among christians is appalling.
Your kind of thinking and attitude problem is a perfect reason why homeschooling should be banned.
Your children should be forcibly taken away from you and sent to a public school, so the can learn facts and reality, and be socialized with normal people.

Correct, the constitution is intended to limit the government, including the prohibition on a government enforced religion.

Pull your head out of your fantasyland/church and read something besides the bible once in a while, something factual.
Separation of church and state, Everson vs Board of Education 1947, the court ruled that church and stae are separate, and the government cannot push religion on to people, and cannot aid it in any way.
It also ruled that Jeffersons “wall of separation” is valid, and that was the intent of the first amendment.
This ruling is binding on the states as well, so don’t bother going to Kentucky to hide.

That is why it is freedom of religion, and freedom FROM religion, you stupid inbred hick.
Jerks like you just prove my point that christians and liberals have the same mentality.

I do not need to buy a dog, I am not fair game for the church.
I am not subject to the churches tyranny and oppression.

I can walk outside on a public street and do whatever I please, and the church cannot say a word to me about it.
All you and the church can do is whine in impotent rage as I exercise my rights, including the one to live free of religion.

With every reply you make the hilarity just rolla on and on! Of course to see the humor one must have enough knowledge to recognize the ironies and absurdities in your every sentence.

For example, you talk about the fact that he constitution limits the government and then you talk about how the government needs to FORCIBLY take away my children! Hilarious hypocrisy! Ow the irony! Stop! Stop! Or I’ll piss my pants!

You talk about how the government can’t force religion on you but then talk about how this somehow PROTECTS YOU from Christians approaching you in the street while exercising. THEIR freedom of religion! As if they somehow are FORBIDDEN from approaching you on the street!! LOL!!! But it DOESN’T!! LOL!!!

See what I meant about all your inanities being so CONTENT RICH that I can’t decide which ones to mock first?? My side is hurting, you are making me laugh so hard!’

Then you conflate Christians with liberals and say we have the same mentality when we are OPPOSITES! LOL!! You sound just like the Ministry of Truth in “1984”.

Love is Hate. Peace is War.

You are so confused you think the constitution PROTECTS YOU from evangelism. If that’s true you should be able to report me to The Authorities and see me arrested!

You are a example of what I talk about, you mock the supreme court ? They have the power to decide what ever they want and you ” god” cannot change this.

The children of your kind are being abused, denied basic education, your stupidity on the the constitution and civics proves this.
The government has the power to take away your children, and your ” god” cannot stop it.

I did not say chrisitans cannot approach me on the street, you are putting words in my mouth, the bible says lying is a sin.

Christians have the same rights everyone else has, some thing you christian taliban types want to deny others, look in you bible to see what jesus thinks of hypocrites.

You are still here ? who cares, I do not recall trying to remove you.
Peace is war, that sounds pretty christian, like going a crusade to kill non believers and free ” the holy land”, all in the name of the prince of peace right ?

I did not say I hate ” god”, I hate the way hypocrites like you act in his name.

I use bible rhetoric because it is something a closed minded fool like you cannot argue against, how do you like being hoisted by your own petard ?

“A word means whatever I say it means when I use it” said the christian to his fellow hypocrites.

Religious freedom means religious freedom, unless you are an atheist, muslim, gay etc., then it means we have the right use the government to force our beliefs on to you.

Love means love, unless someone disagrees with your sect, then it means we will persecute you, attack your civil rights, deny the constitution, deny the bible teachings, legislate morality, legislate your sects point of view etc., because we “love” you, the ministry of love in action. I read 1984 to, and unlike you I paid attention in high school civics class.

Humility means humility, except for your sect, where it means our chosen religion puts us above the law that others have to follow, above the scripture, and even the words of Jesus himself. The bible teaches that pride is a sin.

Gospel means gospel, except for your kind, where it means the gospel is whatever we say it is regardless of what the bible says, the blood of jesus is not enough to save your soul, you must followed the churches list of doe’s and dont’s, eat church, drink church, vote church, never ask a question, that shows lack of faith.
The bible teaches that people like you make the word of god of none effect by your traditions.

Rights means rights, unless it is someones esles rights you do not agree with, then it means only christians have rights, and it is acceptable to whine about your rights being attacked while attacking the rights of others.
How did jesus tell us to treat others ?

Sin means sin, unless christians do it, then it means were not perfect just forgiven, but it is extra special, gnarly, heinous, SIN when gays do it.
The bible tells us that pride is one of the seven deadly sins, and that homosexuality is not, but your priorities are more important than “gods”.

Yes the ministry of truth is in action in you and your sect.
Your Jesus is better than anyone elses jesus, you are his special snowflakes.
The bible shows that jesus rebuked sectarianism among his disciples.

Your attitude shows again that I am right, christians and liberals are the same, no facts, no clue, no evidence, no grasp of reality.
Nothing real, just a another shrill whining emotional response.
All you are capable of doing is mindlessly repeating what some one told you to say.
I notice you do not use the bible to refute me, where is your faith ?
Sorry I cannot mock you any more today, I have to leave soon to go to work for three days away from home, and no time cast pearls before swine.
I have to work and pay extra taxes because churches pay nothing.

I am STILL waiting for some dialectic. Some facts. Even some personal anecdotes! You sound like a some false prophet railing against everyone who doesn’t agree with you.

Is that what you fancy yourself? Is that your particular brand of religious psychosis? That’s it, isn’t it?

You actually see yourself as a true prophet-incognito! Mascarading as a… What? A secularist? Pretending to be an unbeliever but secretly a believer? In order to expose the TRUTH of everyone else’s hypocrisy?

Cause given all those Bible verses you’ve been throwing around at everyone, that’s what you look like.

I can’t think of a single prophet in the bible that ever did something like that. Pretended to NOT believe in God so he could declaim the sins of God’s people.

Wow! Your delusions run DEEP. You just spew shit out if your mouth thinking someone will somehow, maybe with the help of the Holy Spirit? apply your invective to themselves and say, “My eyes have been opened! Bill Parsons (there’s the giveaway! Really? Parsons? You’re really a parson?) Has made me see the sinfulness of my ways!”

Good luck with your preaching. I guess I should start supporting you. After all, God did use an ASS to preach to his wayward prophet, so I guess he could use you.

Preach it, Brother! Oohhhh yeaaaaahhhh! Can I get a witness against the Lord’s people tonight! What about you, Brother Parsons? What do you have to accuse God’s people of tonight? Now normally it is the Devil who spends his time accusing God’s people. But apparently the Devil needed a night/week/year off, so God has brought in Brother Parsons to do the work of the Devil for him.

Lolwut? Go in Twitter or Youtube and check tweets/comments there from new atheists.
Strong and self reliant? Hahhahahaha. Only existentialists are strong and reliant atheists, and they’re not very common. Other atheists just substitute God with what we can prove is an illusion, like “the progress of mankind” (towards uh… something, usually towards sitting in your ass and letting robots do everything for you, and world peace and 0 suffering utopia crap, because they are super, SUPER weak-willed)
Also “facts and reality” is just your shitty opinion. Atheism doesn’t have a monopoly on them.

“Well. looking at the history of christianity and the idiotic attitude problems of it’s followers today, I would say atheism is far better.”

It all depends on how accurate your view of Christianity is. If for example, you are confusing catholicism for Christianity, i could more easily understand your perspective even if i disagree with it no less.

“Atheism at least presents you with facts and reallity instead of lies and mythology.”

Not necessarily. There are atheists who use zealous hyperbole with just as much skill as those of faith do because of their own non supernaturally based religious bias. The atheist darling Richard Dawkins for his part has been publicly castigated for his secular fundamentalism by atheist scientist Peter Higgs, so there you go.

“Atheism teaches you to be strong and self reliant, religion teaches you to be weak and superstitious.”

This is simply a product of your atheist perspective which is no less different that the religious perspective of the person of orthodox faith. There are people of faith with just as much strength (if not more so) than those of a self professed non supernaturally based faith.

“I am a conservative, but I cringe at the thought of the candidates trying to be elected by promising to rely on an imaginary friend and a book of fairy tales to guide our country.”

You empathize with SE Cupp, right? The rare non christian American conservative, maybe?

“If you want to see what our country will be like if christians are allowed to run it, look at Kentucky, or Iran.”

I might give you Kentucky but Iran is really a low blow. True Christianity does nowhere near what islam calls its followers to do. Having read the fundamental doctrines of the first and enough of the second, i can tell you this with no embellishment whatsoever.

A Christian run country would be completely strict and resemble the puritans on a national scale where ALL sin was illegal not just certain ones. As it stands, the US was meant to strike just the right balance but as with everything, no system is perfect and immune from exploitation whenever people seek to undermine established social order.

Even if what you said were true, its entirely irrelevant. There is no god whether you believe that or not. It is time accept the facts and move to the next stage of human evolution.

Again if true, I must say that Judeo-Christian (in which you must include Islam) is a monumental failure given that many of the most horrific crimes in human civilization have been committed by people following these religions.

I have to say, if you need someone to tell you a fairy tale to get you to behave you have serious problems. Its like saying people don’t casually commit murder because its against the law. In actual fact, generally people do not commit murder because we have evolved psychological barriers to wanton killing. This is why humanity has survived so far.

I was reading over your reply to Daniel, wondering which of you inanities I was going to mock, since it would take too long to mock everything you said. I was really torn because it was all so content-rich. But then you said THIS:

“…people do not commit murder because we have evolved psychological barriers to wanton killing. That is why humanity has survived so far.”

ROTFLMAO!!

First off, there is NO, NONE, ZIP, ZERO, NADA, NOT ANY scientific, sociological, anthropological, or psychological evidence to support such a ridiculous statement.

Do you know NOTHING from history? Do you ever READ the news? CAN you read?

No animal kills as wontonly as man. And he’s STILL doing it. Morality does NOT evolve. It is a product of man’s consciousness and not his genes and science doesn’t have the foggiest idea how to explain consciousness.

Now if you want to talk about whether there are such things as mental instincts and whether the brain is pre-wired fto create a mind that has a mental structure which we cannot see, feel, taste, or touch but which is nevertheless real (like God), and that this mind has moral instincts, then you are talking about an area where we know less than we do about the brain, which is very little. Because it is a HELL of a lot more complicated than, “we evolved them”.

Come back when you can prove to me, hell, when you can prove to yourself, that your mind exists.

Read a history book, religion brings the most horrible things in people because religion makes you feel like you are superior to everyone else.
Humans do some truly horrible things, the worst in the name of “god”, this makes it easy to dull your feelings and justify it.

The worst crimes always seem to be committed for “god”, because he loves you.

I’m sorry. You said you were going to reply with some facts instead of mere rhetoric? Well, I’m still waiting.

The relentless atheist refrain of “Religion Bad; Atheism Good,” gets old after you read it 30X from 10 different atheists. Come on! Say somethings interesting. Tell me specifically how atheism has enriched your life. Specifics, man, specifics! Don’t just tell me atheism was pivotal in getting you laid. Tell me, tell all of us ignorant believers how it has helped you.

Betcha can’t!

At least the ancient Greeks were smart enough to know that something was missing from their pantheon when they were inspired to erect a monument “To The Unknown God”. They didn’t know what was missing from their religion but they knew something was amiss.

Which is what I’m talking about when I say atheism is a Nothing. A Void. An Emptiness that inspires nothing. Creates Nothing. Builds Nothing.

When was the FIRST time you saw an atheist hospital? And atheist disaster relief organization? An atheist foster youth program? An atheist BOY SCOUT TROOP?

Like the gays, you couldn’t create something for yourselves first! For your atheist children. No! You had to invade what believers had created, inspired by their faith, and then SHIT ALL OVER IT!!

Yay! Atheism!! We shit on stuff real good!

The very idea of such programs or organizations are anathema to atheists! Because atheists believe in “self-sufficientcy” and the survival of the fittest. Screw the little bastard children! Fuck the sick and dying!

“If they’re going to die then let them do it and decrease the surplus population!”

Like I said to you, and I’m saying to all the atheists here. Put Up or Shut Up!

Sure there is a god. But he has nothing to do with religion. Religion is a power mechanism established by men in order to worship god. I can respect that. But it is not the way I personally worship him.

Now, if you call it god or divine or whatever is not really a gamechanger. Maybe what we call god is just another mechanism of the mind that some people have access to, who knows. But I do not intuit that to be true. For me, he is a father.

I have to say, if you need someone to tell you a fairy tale to get you to behave you have serious problems

“Even if what you said were true, its entirely irrelevant. There is no god whether you believe that or not. It is time accept the facts and move to the next stage of human evolution.”

Unless you can actually prove there is no God your opinion is not factual and entirely debatable.

“Again if true, I must say that Judeo-Christian (in which you must include Islam) is a monumental failure given that many of the most horrific crimes in human civilization have been committed by people following these religions.”

Islam is a perversion of scripture, it stands in a category all by itself. There is no religion that seeks the total assimilation of all others through violent or clandestine means as islam does, save perhaps atheism with the latter. Your remark is the equivalent of saying the US Constitution should be held to blame along with the unconstitutional laws that exploit loopholes or ambiguous vernacular in the US Constitution. Your objective measuring stick is highly dubious, more so when you omit the many atrocities committed under atheist policies, people or governments.

“In actual fact, generally people do not commit murder because we have evolved psychological barriers to wanton killing”

If there was no belief in a higher being that punishes those who commit crimes as heinous as murder, you really think that people would be less inclined to commit them? That is sheer absurdity.

The US is an example that contradicts your stated beliefs.

Since Engel Vs Vitale, Roe v Wade etc the US has gotten worse in terms of overall crime and perversions, not better.

Going by your remark, would a child fare better under the instruction of the State rather than 2 parents? What is a parent if not a god to a child who knows nothing but fear and (eventually) respect for someone far greater than him or herself?

It’s only fallacious because you are already operating on the biased assumption that God is “non existent.” As a truly objective person of non faith, you would operate on the grounds of logic and reason which are best emphasized in a scientific approach; this means that the bar for proving God doesn’t exist is much higher with you than with me and those like me proving He does, since none of us are saying God exists because of logic, but simply because of faith. Since your position is presumably one of logic and not faith, you would have to show through the scientific method why God doesn’t exist, not simply share that you believe he doesn’t because of personal bias. That is not reason, that is religion even if it is non supernaturally based.

“Held to blame for what?”

I would think that was evident from the remarks you quoted.

“Historically, devout Christians have been some of the most atrocious
killers. I don’t believe in a higher being and I’m not inclined to
kill. Job done.”

I would say devout Catholics instead, since not everyone claiming to be a Christian actually is. However, history has shown that some of the worst atrocities imaginable have been (and still are) being committed under the banner of no God, through the will of Man. Since atheism tends to be a religion with tenets that are added to by those claiming to be atheists, the more that human history shows us what passes for their beliefs and motivations, the less likely humanity overall has benefited from the results.

Please don’t be difficult. What you meant about the Constitution is not evident to me even if its obvious to you. Politeness and thoroughness is key in making yourself understood.

You are accusing me of bias. The Scientific Method is free from moral values and bias. I don’t have to show you using this method that God does not exist because actually this cannot be proven. If the existence of something cannot be either proven or disproved then this is an unscientific claim and as such invalid. If you tried to prove the existence of God using this method you would wind up with no answer. For example, if I said “I have faith that undetectable aliens are all around us”, you can neither prove nor disprove this claim. But this does not mean that these aliens really do exist.

Atheism is a religion? Please tell me where I can find a church or an atheist priest. Where is the atheist Holy Book?

You are missing the point. There is no “atheism vs religion” argument here. I am arguing against the claim that religion makes for a more moral society. I have shown that it does not. What individual atheists do in other countries is irrelevant. The relatively greater degree of crimes under regimes such as the USSR is more to do with means rather than whether or not they were Christian. Men commit heinous crimes because this the nature of man and it is unrestricted by religion.

“Please don’t be difficult. What you meant about the Constitution is not evident to me even if its obvious to you. Politeness and thoroughness is key in making yourself understood.”

I wasn’t trying to be, but the answer was in there. What i meant (in my comparison) was that the Constitution couldn’t be blamed for laws that are ostensibly poised to be Constitutional but actually aren’t. (ex: gun control laws, homo marriage laws, abortion etc) and i used that to demonstrate to you that not all religion should be condemned for the sustained unscrupulous actions of a few or a particular one.

“You are accusing me of bias. The Scientific Method is free from moral values and bias. I don’t have to show you using this method that God does not exist because actually this cannot be proven. If the existence of something cannot be either proven or disproved then this is an unscientific claim and as such invalid. If you tried to prove the existence of God using this method you would wind up with no answer. For example, if I said “I have faith that undetectable aliens are all around us”, you can neither prove nor disprove this claim. But this does not mean that these aliens really do exist.”

Of course you’re biased. We are all biased to one degree or another. What makes the bias good or bad is how biased we are for the truth rather than evidences which support our personal viewpoints but may not support the overall truth. You shared a truth in your remark (“i don’t have to show you…”) which indicates that you do understand that a supernatural intangible like the almighty cannot be dis/proven through the scientific method because of a variety of factors and because the scientific approach requires more than just simple belief…and yet you still went as far as you did earlier in claiming a belief that “there is no God.”
The sensible thing to do in your position is take the agnostic approach, which essentially amounts to “maybe he does, maybe he doesn’t exist.”

For you to go beyond that and claim He doesn’t exist when you yourself just stated that science cannot (dis)prove the existence of God is for you to demonstrate a belief that has no grounds in the scientific method.

“Atheism is a religion? Please tell me where I can find a church or an atheist priest. Where is the atheist Holy Book?”

I addressed this already when i said “Since atheism tends to be a religion with tenets that are added to by those claiming to be atheists…”

How do you think the scriptures increased in number? People added to it (through divine intervention) throughout the course of human history. It didn’t start off complete, indeed during the time of Jesus only the OT was available for reference.
It’s practically the same with atheism. Men like Dawkins have added to atheist doctrine throughout the course of his life, the manner in which the information is collected doesn’t have to be the same as it was with Christian scripture either. A simple google search for “atheist beliefs” leads one to many different beliefs about the religion including the belief that it isn’t one, despite the fact that those who identify as “atheist” tend to believe that God doesn’t exist in spite of the fact they can’t prove He doesn’t. This belief tends to be the prevailing one among most who identify as atheist, so you could say that this is the equivalent of the first judeoChristian commandment, or “thou art thy own god and should love thyself” in a sense, since the atheist holds humanistic views that allow practically no restrictions on what one chooses to do with one’s self since all personal actions are subject to the will of the person choosing to do them.

“You are missing the point. There is no “atheism vs religion” argument here. I am arguing against the claim that religion makes for a more moral society. I have shown that it does not. What individual atheist do in other countries is irrelevant. The relatively greater degree of crimes under regimes such as the USSR is more to do with means rather than whether or not they were Christian. Men commit heinous crimes because this the nature of man and it is unrestricted by religion.”

You haven’t shown that it doesn’t, you simply believe that you have. You consider all religions as equally barbaric when a sustained research would show that such was not the case. Islam has been barbaric from start to finish, because they still operate in OT times where the ends justified the means. The bellicose efficiency of the Hebrew OT religion however was refined by Jesus into what is most commonly understood to be Christianity today: humility by default and waging war for God through God and not through the sword. Catholicism is the fusion of church and State, as such it operated under the discretion of kings and popes rather than scripture and Jesus the more that time passed, so that explains their truculent actions in history. True Christianity as emphasized with a respect for the OT and an adherence to the NT especially the writings of Jesus, differentiates the Christian faith from islam, which is the religion you are likely using to operate on the belief that religion does not make for a more moral society.

You believe that committing crimes is the nature of Man and i wouldn’t necessarily disagree, however i disagree that it would be unrestricted by religion. It all depends on what religion that Man is subject to and how faithfully he follows it in principle. Your remark speaks to an absolute that human history shows is far too complex to properly answer in such a manner.

As far as morality itself goes, that requires a belief in a higher power in order for it to truly qualify as moral…without the presence of God or His principles you d-evolve morality into secular ethics, or doing “right” simply because it’s required by Man’s law, for instance.
Morality involves a faith based right and wrong whereas secular ethics involves a lesser right and wrong that is tantamount to what is legal and not legal under law and proper and not proper as subject to a person’s reasonable discretion. Understanding of morality has existed since the beginning of human civilization whereas secular ethics began to be taught during the time of the early Greeks and their philosophical musings (Anaxagoras and Epicurus for examples) and became more popular (as well as convoluted) during the early 18th century and beyond, with figures like Kant and of course, Nietzsche.

The fundamental difference between both belief systems is that in the first instance something that was wrong is still considered wrong and will always be considered wrong because God said as much, whereas in the latter something that may be completely wrong yesterday may not be socially or legally wrong today because of populist philosophical persuasion and a reconsideration by lawmakers. This explains why homosexuality is considered morally wrong by those of Christian faith, but no longer wrong by those of a secular ethical persuasion. (Generally speaking of course.)

My views are defined by tenets that are inviolable and immutable even by the passage of time but yours are subject to reinterpretation by secular law and through the selfish desires of the mob. Ask yourself…which one is therefore more likely to be of true merit to the human race? While both can be abused for wrongdoing, which one is more capable of offering benefit to the human race, if one follows the teachings of a Man who taught others to “love even your enemy” as a guiding principle?

Thank you for the explanation. It’s preferable to be clear rather than force people to infer what you meant. That way we can avoid confusion. Actually I do blame the Constitution but that’s another matter.

You’re missing the point about my sarcastic questions (church, priest, Holy Book). Atheism is a word to describe people who have rejected the existence of God. Calling atheists religious is a bit like calling everyone homosexuals. Homosexuals need to believe that. As I said, dismissing the notion of God is the result of a logical process. Belief in God is an article of faith. Very, very different. Only an irrational mind would think otherwise. I dismissed the concept of a god based on inescapable conclusion of logic. Not because I was raised to believe in the non-existence of God. Frankly, to suggest atheism is a religious is ridiculous.

Everyone is biased so no one is biased. Bias loses it’s meaning here. Lets just say I have no agenda here. I am simply following logic.

Taking an agnostic approach is pointless and irrational. When someone takes an unscientific approach we simply reject their conclusion because it is irrational. Logically, in you point of view we have to be agnostic about everything (the existence of witches, fairies, leprechauns, etc.) which is ridiculous. It is not for me to prove the non-existence of something. Generally proving a negative is impossible (i.e. try to prove the non-existence of fairies). He who asserts must prove. You assert the existence of God and must prove it. But you cannot and so you must fall back on irrational feelings like faith. But man has evolved from faith to reason.

You are making excuses for Christians, which is reminiscent of the excuses made for socialism (Stalin didn’t have true socialism). But socialism is everywhere a crime. It is only different in degree. So if only Catholics had true Christianity. Regardless, Christianity has been violent from start to finish as well as Islam. Not because of Christianity or Islam but because of man. Christians would even burn other Christians at the stake! This is a brutal atrocity. This happens because of a) in Man’s mind, he makes exceptions to the Commandment Thou shalt not kill” and b) he can always go to Confession afterwards.

Men rationalise their crimes. It is their flaw. Based on “faith” it is is easy to rationalise. With logic, not so. logic is universal, faith is individual.

“You’re missing the point about my sarcastic questions (church, priest, Holy Book). Atheism is a word to describe people who have rejected the existence of God. Calling atheists religious is a bit like calling everyone homosexuals. Homosexuals need to believe that. As I said, dismissing the notion of God is the result of a logical process. Belief in God is an article of faith. Very, very different. Only an irrational mind would think otherwise. I dismissed the concept of a god based on inescapable conclusion of logic. Not because I was raised to believe in the non-existence of God. Frankly, to suggest atheism is a religious is ridiculous.”

I didn’t say all of them were, only those (antitheist) ones who make the kind of declaration you did earlier. I’m not saying you’re an antitheist either, but you are making the same kind of argument. I don’t see the logic of your latter remark here by the way, since all homosexuals don’t believe in the lie of the born gay gene, even if some to most do. Some to most atheists do believe that their beliefs aren’t religious even if they can’t scientifically prove as much, so how is that any different? Your final remark here is no less ridiculous than dismissing the existence of God because of ipse dixit remarks. If you can’t prove God doesn’t exist, you can’t scientifically say with all certainly that he doesn’t. You can’t invalidate an intangible without the necessary scientific steps, and since we are in agreement that God can’t be proven through the SM, your position such as it is has more to do with faith than actual facts.

“Everyone is biased so no one is biased. Bias loses it’s meaning here. Lets just say I have no agenda here. I am simply following logic.”

Meh, i don’t agree with your remark here, more so because of the excuse it gives you to continue stating your beliefs as factual.

“Taking an agnostic approach is pointless and irrational. When someone takes an unscientific approach we simply reject their conclusion because it is irrational. Logically, in you point of view we have to be agnostic about everything (the existence of witches, fairies, leprechauns, etc.) which is ridiculous. It is not for me to prove the non-existence of something. Generally proving a negative is impossible (i.e. try to prove the non-existence of fairies). He who asserts must prove. You assert the existence of God and must prove it. But you cannot and so you must fall back on irrational feelings like faith. But man has evolved from faith to reason.”

How is it “irrational” to refrain from offering a personal opinion until all the facts become available? I would much rather people take an agnostic approach with most things than for people to take a dismissive cynical view towards anything. This is the equivalent of you saying its better to judge everyone as guilty first and prove them innocent later in order to keep from having guilty people go free. It’s a cynical approach.
Your latter remarks again fails to take into consideration that people of faith aren’t trying to prove God to you, since faith and logic don’t operate in the same manner. If faith could be proven it wouldn’t be faith anymore, it would be logic. We BELIEVE God exists and that’s good enough for us, but you both believe AND think he doesn’t but can’t prove as much through undeniable fact. Big difference. Until you can prove God doesn’t exist this will be you believing He doesn’t rather than thinking, since the first implies feeling whereas the second implies logic arrived at through undeniable evidence.

If Man has evolved from faith to reason…why are things even worse off than when Man operated on just faith alone? Do you really think that a selfish philosophy as atheism promotes the same kind of golden rule or selfless altruism the Christian faith does? How so?

“You are making excuses for Christians, which is reminiscent of the
excuses made for socialism (Stalin didn’t have true socialism). But
socialism is everywhere a crime. It is only different in degree. So if
only Catholics had true Christianity. Regardless, Christianity has
been violent from start to finish as well as Islam. Not because of
Christianity or Islam but because of man. Christians would even burn other Christians at the stake! This is a brutal atrocity. This happen because of a) in Man’s mind, he makes exceptions to the Commandment Thou shalt not kill” and b) he can always go to Confession afterwards.”

And you aren’t making excuses for atheism, by implying that it led to reason when my earlier examples of Stalin and Mao exist to counter that? Let’s not convolute the discussion by mentioning socialism, please. Stalin was an atheist and so was Mao. This is undeniable.
Furthermore, you are making unsubstantiated polemical remarks against Christianity, when you state that Christianity has been violent from start to finish…that is not true. In the US for example, the abolitionist movement began with Christians. Christians the world over are among the most charitable on earth. Even the CC donates billions of dollars to charities…how much does Dawkin contribute to charity, or those like him?
Your remarks about Man only serve to emphasize what i said earlier, when i said a faith is only as good as how much a Man is willing to follow its core tenets. You are blaming the whole of faith and every faith for the actions of some Men. It’s an unfair declaration…going by that logic we should blame all Blacks for the existence of rape in the US, since by a majority standard Black males rape more than Whites.

For the record, the hebrew verse you are referring to includes not murdering….back then the Hebrew judges would order the deaths of those who broke God’s laws, so killing was allowable under certain circumstances. Most countries operate the same way.

Yeah, the calvinist church was responsible for those burnings (if you’re referring to the salem witch trials) as influenced by Anglican militancy. Calvinism is an offshoot of orthodox Christianity that differs in some parts, for instance it’s use of predestination. If it’s not in the bible, how can you blame all of Christian faith for the unscriptural actions of these and other so called Christians?

“Men rationalise their crimes. It is their flaw. Based on “faith” it is is
easy to rationalise. With logic, not so. logic is universal, faith is
individual.”

And how are you doing any different with regard to atheism? You just defended Stalin by saying he wasn’t really a socialist.

Are you implying that you have faith? Or are you stating that your position is not really a logical one and you are operating only on philosophical bias here?

I will. The Founders didn’t always agree (just as we don’t) but they agreed enough and gathered their resources against a common enemy that we also fight against: those seeking to destroy established order through the promotion of unnatural philosophies.

We can just agree to disagree where disagreement has been shared and continue the fight against those who are the true enemy.

I live today..and today Islam is far more violent than any other religion..it should and could be destroyed if all it’s victims got together and fought it. Imagine a war where China dealt with their Islamic problem, India dealt with theirs, Israel with theirs, Christian Africa with theirs and Europe dealt with their Islamic Immigrant problem, while Serbia is let off the leish to deal with their problems. Islam could be destroyed within a few years.

Only because the Muslim Nations are so backward and so dont have the technology to create the most destructive wars. Once they have nuclear weapons they will destroy themselves – probably with Israel pitching in a helping hand.

A life lived in fear of damnation is a life survived. These days, I really doubt the value of civilization to everyone but a few – and those are not necessarily the wealthiest, but those able to see through all the bullshit.

God loves everybody as they are. From my limited perspective, religion alienates people from god by filling them with shame for their own nature.

So you don’t think biblical laws against murder, theft, perjury and the like are “Godly?”

There’s a fine line between demagoguery and proselytization of course. The true message encompasses proportionate amounts of love along with the consequences for disobedience.

Ask yourself: does a parent do any less? Is a good parent one who only shows affection to their child, or one who shows affection as well as discipline? Spare the rod and spoil the child speaks to the latter.

God doesn’t love everyone as they are, He loves them for how much they exercise their love to Him through obedience, of the type beginning with fear and ending with respect and love. Everyone else has exercised spiritual emancipation from Him and is considered wicked, reprobate, etc. They turn their backs on Him and He does the same, essentially.

When one has that kind of advanced relationship with the Almighty, one goes from having a religion to having a relationship with God.

I receive god’s love no matter who or what I am. The only thing that matters is for me not to be ashamed in his face, not to try to hide my nature. Religion teaches you that you need to do something to be worthy of his love. If you believe that, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy, enforced by shame and the semi-conscious rejection of his love.

Bring up a child with conditional love and you get an emotionally stunted adult, always eager to please and kiss ass, in one way or another.

As for parents, well, I am conflicted. I do see a parallel. In my eyes, the job of parent or god is to guide the kid to be who he / she wants to be. It does require submission, but not blind obedience. Teaching should be an aid to self-discovery, not to imitation. I respect Christianity as the practice of a relationship with god that some have established. It is the act of forcing that knowledge on youngsters that makes me strongly question it. As well as the tiresome quoting of scripture, like buerocrats who can not think for themselves. I find it despicable, or, let me say, childlike.

Human nature and social interaction has a way of disciplining you all by its own. Learning from life, so to speak. If you let it.

“Religion teaches you that you need to do something to be worthy of his love”

I would think that organized religion teaches the opposite…that you only have to claim the title in order to be worthy of His love, as if words alone were the same as actions. This explains the rise of the prosperity gospel as best demonstrated through con preachers like Joel Losteen and TD Fakes.

-Jas 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

You can’t have a true faith in faith if you don’t back it up with actions to distinguish it from groupie related talk. People don’t realize that being a Christian is more than just a noun, it’s practically a verb if you get what i’m saying. We may have to agree to disagree here.

“It does require submission, but not blind obedience.”

Not blind obedience, but obedience nonetheless. A child who questions a parent in anything other than an extreme request is one who is rebellious and will likely grow into a brat the more that time passes. We have enough of those walking around to emphasize my point. The moment parents prioritized trying to be friends with their kids instead of their strict instructors is the moment that the family unit took another major step in its descent towards oblivion.

A parent is a parent when he or she emphasizes instruction for the benefit of the child regardless of the stringent method of the approach. The difference between teaching and indoctrinating is of course the motivation…teaching a child how to think in the first place, what to think in the second.

While faith related matters tend to blur the line between the two, it becomes necessary when one already understands that there are fundamentals that HAVE to be taught even if they come across didactic in nature.

For example: Teaching a child a respect for the law regardless of the child’s viewpoints to the contrary is necessary for obvious reasons. Children tend to be lawless as a default so if a parent makes the mistake of allowing the child to learn as you described first (social interaction) it would likely mean the child will learn the “harder way” and possibly through a negative first hand encounter with the law even.

Being the best kind of parent means you want to have the child learn the answer FIRST especially with things that you spent your life answering. If you are teaching them properly they will learn the means by which to understand the answer and aggregate it to what has been learned ex post facto through maturity and the proper social interaction.

I like that you are open to discussion. Since you are Christian, it is natural that we disagree. I do not claim the title or verb Christian for myself. To me, god is just the dad I never had.

And yeah, friend is not the right thing. I realized some time ago that I carry this deep wish to submit, never having had a father nor any faith. Somebody to bow down to who will not abuse that power. Then it appeared to me that that is surely the original purpose of prayer. The cool thing is that it takes away the need to submit to others, like girls, shudder.

I am quite a rebel myself, so I disagree on respect for the law. It is just man-made. I am also questioning the merits of civilization as of lately. It sometimes comes handy no have no respect for authority. Other times, I wish I could let go of the need to fight everyone. But I guess that is something I will have to solve with the asshole that left me.

If I were to teach my children respect, it would be respect of power, not respect of morals. The ones in power always dictate those and if they rather than the rulers become the subject of respect, it makes the kid into a naive and controllable marionette with a confused mind, who ends ip debating right and wrong instead of ‘what can i do to get what i want?’

In other words, I want my children to understand the selfish benefit they derive from any rule they decide to follow.

“I am quite a rebel myself, so I disagree on respect for the law. It is just man made”

You believe this because you are an adult, and you are wise enough to realize that even if you don’t have a respect for the law you won’t break it wantonly. A child of course cannot be expected to understand that. This is why you should teach a child respect for the law and as they age teach them why some laws are just and why some aren’t and hope they come to understand the differences as they become adults themselves as new laws come to pass. Parenting is not a perfect science of course, but doing the best that you can as early as you can raises the possibility of the child not growing up to be an idiot, a sheeple, and so forth.
As a parent myself i do the best that i can with the means that i have. Everything else is prayer.

” I am also questioning the merits of civilization as of lately. It
sometimes comes handy no have no respect for authority. Other times, I wish I could let go of the need to fight everyone. But I guess that is
something I will have to solve with the asshole that left me.”

A civilization may as well be a single word oxymoron if one considers the uncivil American civilization as a frame of reference. We exist in a society that makes up rules on the go as a bone to be thrown to the masses that whine the loudest, regardless of the intent of those Men who established society in the first place or the God who inspired them even.

You strike me as the caged lion that bides its time and endures the crack of the whip while it waits for an opportunity to strike and strike decisively after capitalizing on a window of weakness. You also strikes me as a lion that questions its need to be a lion. Understand that your very defiance of authority has a lot to do with the kind of weak and immoral leadership that positions itself as your superior on moral and secular matters and makes laws to arrest the potential for leadership of your own. The hypocrisy of our society is in the fact that criminals make the laws for everyone else which they exempt themselves from because of political clout. The one thing that infuriates Men more than anything else is hypocrisy, more so when that hypocrisy involves the battle of the sexes. Don’t deny that part of yourself that rattles the cage, accept it as readily as you do the testosterone that flows freely in you and master it as you have the veneer of civility that you showcase anytime you walk outside. One day the cage will be left unlocked or the lion tamer will leave an opening, and you will know when to strike for the benefit of yourself and Men everywhere. This society is on its last legs, it just doesn’t realize it yet. Patience is key.

“In other words, I want my children to understand the selfish benefit they derive from any rule they decide to follow”

Understandable, but remember that the greatest accomplishments are achieved through selflessness, not selfishness.

This country was founded on just such a selflessness and the neomasculine society of tomorrow must have no less a motivation behind it in order for it to exist.

Fighting for something greater than yourself, whether it be God or country, always produces a more passionate response and a more sustained fight than if one were to simply fight because of selfish concerns.

The neomasculine children of today are the neomasculine society of tomorrow. The neomasculine Men of today are the gateway between both. Do your part to make yourself a doorway to something better, and you will be doing your part to fight back even if the war isn’t won until long after your demise.

Damn, you seem reasonable. I find the neomasculinity thing a bit nutty, but I will let you have that.

You strike me as the caged lion that bides its time and endures the crack of the whip while it waits for an opportunity to strike and strike decisively after capitalizing on a window of weakness.

That strikes a nerve with me. I am not sure why, but this really is exactly how I feel at times. Baring my teeth, waiting to slash them into the neck of those who now naively look down at me. I will try and not take too much pride in your assessment.

Will say, though, that focusing on myself has grown quite tiresome if I am to decide whom or what to direct my attention at. I find myself boring, as I am now sure everyone must find himself.

We exist in a society that makes up rules on the go as a bone to be thrown to the masses that whine the loudest, regardless of the intent of those Men who established society in the first place or the God who inspired them even.

I am currently reading a book called ‘Freedom for the thought that we hate’. It explores the way freedom of speech came about and really challenged my views in regard to any kind of natural state ‘as the fathers wanted it’ or anything like that. The freedom of speech, in the end, is nothing more than another bone that was thrown to those who had the appetite to nibble at it. One thesis of the book is that a law will only ever succeed if you can sell it, and it argues this convincingly with the case of freedom of speech. To the point that I truly am in a cognitive dissonance as in whether to think of freedom of speech as a ‘good’ or ‘evil’ force. It certainly has elements of both.

I do not believe in godly law, as I said. I believe that god supports each of his children to shape the world the way they want it to be. He gives each one who accepts it the love and confidence to stand behind his convictions, but he does not intervene or push any single idea. That is also why I do not see a conflict between evolution and the existence of god. Godly law, to me, is the sum of all the laws of physical reality: Gravity, electromagnetic and nuclear forces. Everything is made up out of them and that is why it is impossible to disobey god. As I see it, my body is my soul.

Thank you. Rest assured i don’t have a shrine dedicated to Roosh or his ideals but i do empathize with his philosophy, as he has given it a definition that i as a Man have spent years trying to encapsulate within a single word.

I appreciate your tolerance for my psychoanalysis, such as it was.

i will say that perhaps this conversation today was one of your “non boring” ones. It certainly provided food for thought, more so because of your interesting views on freedom of speech and those who championed it many yesterdays ago as well as other interesting topics.

“To the point that I truly am in a cognitive dissonance as in whether to think of freedom of speech as a ‘good’ or ‘evil’ force. It certainly has elements of both.”

To question if one has CD is to not have it in the first place. You may have a particular affinity for a particular P.O.V. (with regard to freedom of speech) but that is another matter entirely and one which i have no interest in disagreeing with, since opinion passed off as opinion deserves a respect on the basis of those honest grounds. Also, disagreeing with your ambivalent opinion on freedom of speech would make me lose sight of the purpose of freedom of speech, so there you go.

You or i may be wrong or right in anything we say here or have said elsewhere or will say sometime in the future, but to accept that we might be wrong or right is the essence of humility and the means by which to avoid becoming that which we despite the most: the powers that currently be.

While i disagree on your interpretation of Godly law, i have no interest in getting into any theological arguments right now. It’s enough to know you believe in God, and you are trying to understand Him and you understand that you may or may not be right while doing so.

I will say that faith and science can indeed reconcile on mutual grounds if both respect each others intent. I believe evolution fits perfectly with animals but not with people…in that instance i believe in Johann Blumenbach’s “de-evolution” related research.

You or i may be wrong or right in anything we say here or have said elsewhere or will say sometime in the future, but to accept that we might be wrong or right is the essence of humility and the means by which to avoid becoming that which we despite the most: the powers that currently be.

Indeed. I do not champion humility for its own sake, but simply for being the most realistic and least frustrating approach to life as I see it these days.

The powers that currently be, yes. I could respect a psychopath who smartly manipulates a whole nation into madness. It would have finesse and method and although I would not like it having done to me, I could rest assured that there was some kind of intelligent intent behind my suffering. Have you seen the movie Gaslight? It quite reminded me of my old – now passing – madness, inflicted by my mother and possibly many people.

But what I see today is a state of headless countries. Indeed, I wish there was a king so that I could direct at him all anger about things that I dislike about his leadership. So that I may fantasize with one day overthrowing him.

Yet the anger that I feel can not be directed in any direction, which is part of the frustration that I feel. There is nobody responsible. It is, in my eyes, just a chemical – or social – reaction of the mingling of chemicals – people. Those who decide on a law will not be ruling tomorrow. Those who take your stuff will not be held accountable, for they follow orders. And whose orders? Nobody’s, really. The ‘people’s’. So all I am left with is to hate everybody, because I must see everybody as my oppressor. Although I prefer not to hate these days.

Hitler made similar observations. He concluded that democracy is not the path to take if you want to change things. Although I do not share his vision, I respect his approach and boldness.

After finding god, I had the impulse to use that confidence to stand behind some kind of doctrine or become a perfect being. But that confidence has also made me free to quickly learn the futility and impossibility of that without much shame. So that these days, I prefer to pray for being able to tolerate living with all my imperfections and uncertainties at all times.

I am not currently interested in a theological debate, either. But I will keep the devolution thing in the back of my mind, it sounds interesting. Intuitively, I too believe that there is something special about people. Recently, I stood in front of a herd of sheep. I studied my feelings and I just had this intuition that told me that the sheep and I are not equal. I saw them and could feel mere contempt for their stupidity. I saw them and thought: They are not like me. They lack something that gives me identity. They are my food.

They seemed like machines. And at that moment, I realized that I actually feel a slightly similar sentiment towards females. But, of course, I would rather make love to a woman than to a goat!

Atheism has jack shit to say about “denial of something greater than the self.” The only idea that ties all atheists together is that they reject the god claim. All they say is, “I haven’t seen proof of any gods.” Some might go on to claim that proof of gods cannot exist, but that’s not a prerequisite.

No atheist I’ve ever met, and I think very few ever (if any), would agree with your statement of the purpose of atheism (hell, most would probably say there is no purpose, especially a fundamental one).

And you don’t think that’s a denial of something greater than the self, when they conveniently omit the undeniable evidence to justify the God denial remark as incontrovertible?

My friend, i used to be an atheist, so i know whereof i speak here. While not all atheists necessarily share the same view (there are a few reasonable ones) the more militant ones tend to share many if not all of the characteristics i described.

“..as we had during the height of the Christian Church.”
Examples? Height of the varies socialist “temples” the deaths are in the tens of millions. More direct, take all the religious wars (christian and muslim) together and the socialist ideoglical wars surpass them.

You’ll just get called a RINO, racist or Neocon Warmonger respectively. You may get fired as Eich had from Mozilla. In Iran and rural Turkey if you’re 12 and female, you will get honor killed for wearing western clothing.

You seem to mixing things up there. We’re talking about religion versus modern Western Civ. What you described in Iran is religion. In the UK I can talk all the shit I like about the government without being “honor killed”.

Don’t think you can make such a general, sweeping statement such as that based on one topic, especially when they, as Darth Hideous said a moment ago, “shit on the past all the time. Look at their seething contempt for ‘tradition.'”

The fact that traditions have survived for thousands of years speaks to many of their merits. Progressives are so quick to dump them without critically reviewing why they’ve been integral parts of their society. Such reckless abandonment is spelling the doom of western civilization as we speak.

My point was that the secular community can list for themselves tenets which they consider sacrosanct even if they don’t include a presumed supernatural origin. I hope you realize that an atheist can be no less “religious” than a traditional person of faith during the course of their lives.

“When did God said or agreed with the bill of rights?”

I never said He did, however given that the Declaration of Independence includes things which do not conflict with biblical scripture and the UDHR does, one has to understand what the motivation is with regard to the people who proposed both texts.

But why would the Left (more often then not) use Declaration of Independence, the constitution, emancipation proclamation to justify equality for Homos, Trannies, women and melanin if it’s founded through a religion that disagrees with their cause? It should make more sense for them to be willing to use a based Übermensch/hive-mind contract…

They never separated Church and State through official Constitutional charter. The ONLY time the phrase was even spoken of was in a letter written by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association for the express purpose of voicing his support for their religious rights, when the local government was considering taxing them because of their beliefs. SOCAS is a fabrication by historical revisionists which attempts to use what happened in Engel Vs Vitale as a means of trying to rewrite history and law much the same way Roe did for abortion and Obergefell did for psychosexual disorders.

You should also realize the US government paid for the printing and dissemination of the bible using public coffers.

AHAHAHA, hilarious!
Dudes are there actually any old or new testament prophecies that came true? Elven, do you honestly reason us logically-I repeat ‘LOGICALLY’ assume these pre-dick-ions are true outside of the Bible?
That’s just circular logic, something you’re familer with chasing your own tail.

Most research is carefully crafted peer reviewed pat-on-the-back reinforce-the-msm-narrative bullshit that’s okayed by journals with very expensive license fees.

The on the ground real scientific breakthroughs you’ll see are in three areas.

1) private industry like big pharma [i’m not saying these guys are good, just that they make breakthroughs]

2) something discovered on the way to trying to solve some other problem, or a tool developed to solve one problem becoming useful in and of itself. like it or not, space, the military industrial complex and huge international infrastructure projects like cern, NIF in livermore and so on provide funding for this.

I personally think the talebian approach of much smaller budgets, more/near total private sector and much more variety in what’s funded will yield much greater gains then multibillion dollar projects. No bid contracts are completely evil, and provide no skin in the game.

3) private sec offshoots of firms made off campus to continue research done on campus but with the financial motive making projects actually viable. There are a crazy amount of millionaires in companies around cambridge for this very reason. They apply their smarts to finance and commercial applications and make bank.

But science as far as academia and what’s reported goes? its all largely bullshit for headlines.

even something i’d like to see funded like Nasa mars missions, are pretty fucking shameless when it came to the martian movie. They’re happy to get into bed with hollywood if it means they’ll get a chance to sway people into wanting to spend billions and trillions of dollars the country doesnt have on something that would not get nearly the kind of return of investment they’d hoped. (there’s the possibility of asteroid and space mining but thats not at all what a mars mission would be about)

You are quite correct sir, but no religion can do this either, and almost always make them worse.
Religion gave us the dark ages, religion flies planes into buildings, religion has ruined more lives than everything else put

It is a question of which religion. But one thing Christianity never promises is universal salvation. Not in this life. In fact, Christianity pretty much promises things will get worse before they get better